Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?

[M.D. Rawlings]

Dear Hollie and Justin Davis:
If Justin or whoever on here is "Jehovah's Witness"
let's get it clear who that is.

JW need to be talked with a certain way.
So this is not a light label to throw around.

You don't just randomly label speakers of foreign languages
"Italian" "French" "German" -- ie whatever language is foreign to you.
You have to be SPECIFIC what language they really do speak
if you are going to communicate EFFECTIVELY with that person and each other!

Hollie you remind me of Helen Keller
who didn't think it mattered what the string of
letters meant in her hands: cake, doll, eat, etc. were all random to her.

It took her teacher dragging her out to the back
and running W-A-T-E-R over her hands to make the "connection"
what those letters meant, as opposed to C-A-T or D-O-L-L

You think these religions are all random and meaningless,
so you call anyone any label you THINK means a 'closeminded religious follower'

Hollie these religions are LANGUAGES
for concepts and relations between abstract principles and "collective" levels
of looking at the world.

Don't be like Helen Keller before she had her mind opened
and realized these SYMBOLS actually MEANT SOMETHING REAL.

Once she understood that, she became an advocate for reaching out and breaking down barriers to the deaf and blind that had never been tackled before.

Hollie if you as an atheist were to understand that these languages are real,
you could help open the door for nontheists to be able to communicate
with theists instead of rejecting each other over the language barrier.

I really hope pray and "meditate on wisdom" that you get this.

We need all the help we can get to break down these barriers,
very similar to what Helen Keller and Anne Sullivan
overcame as historic heroes. the symbols mean something,
and they can be used as positive tools, not just repeating random garbage!

Justin is not a JW. Hollie is just being sarcastic. Justin is clearly a Trinitarian, holds to Christ's divinity. He's an orthodox Christian. He made that very clear. I'm not a JW either, but an orthodox Christian, so pay no mind to that.

 

[Hollie]

Dear Hollie and Justin Davis:
If Justin or whoever on here is "Jehovah's Witness"
let's get it clear who that is.

JW need to be talked with a certain way.
So this is not a light label to throw around.

You don't just randomly label speakers of foreign languages
"Italian" "French" "German" -- ie whatever language is foreign to you.
You have to be SPECIFIC what language they really do speak
if you are going to communicate EFFECTIVELY with that person and each other!

Hollie you remind me of Helen Keller
who didn't think it mattered what the string of
letters meant in her hands: cake, doll, eat, etc. were all random to her.

It took her teacher dragging her out to the back
and running W-A-T-E-R over her hands to make the "connection"
what those letters meant, as opposed to C-A-T or D-O-L-L

You think these religions are all random and meaningless,
so you call anyone any label you THINK means a 'closeminded religious follower'

Hollie these religions are LANGUAGES
for concepts and relations between abstract principles and "collective" levels
of looking at the world.

Don't be like Helen Keller before she had her mind opened
and realized these SYMBOLS actually MEANT SOMETHING REAL.

Once she understood that, she became an advocate for reaching out and breaking down barriers to the deaf and blind that had never been tackled before.

Hollie if you as an atheist were to understand that these languages are real,
you could help open the door for nontheists to be able to communicate
with theists instead of rejecting each other over the language barrier.

I really hope pray and "meditate on wisdom" that you get this.

We need all the help we can get to break down these barriers,
very similar to what Helen Keller and Anne Sullivan
overcame as historic heroes. the symbols mean something,
and they can be used as positive tools, not just repeating random garbage!

Justin is not a JW. Hollie is just being sarcastic. Justin is clearly a Trinitarian, holds to Christ's divinity. He's an orthodox Christian. He made that very clear. I'm not a JW either, but an orthodox Christian, so pay no mind to that.

Why not be honest? You formulated your sock account of "Justin" as an annoying JW version of yourself.

 

[emilynghiem]

Thanks to MD I think this will get easier as we go

Inevitable doesn't believe that. He doesn't believe in talking about tangible, objective facts. He believes what the atheists told him to believe about Rawlings.

I am interested in objective tangible facts, I just haven't seen any. I never heard from any atheists about that poster. What atheists are you talking about? When did they talk to me?

Rawlings was trying to talk with him about the issues and Inevitable just kept making personal attacks and smart ass remarks.

I told you before Emily this is what relativists do. It doesn't matter whether they are atheists or theists. Look at the conversion between Rawlings and Inevitable. Where did Rawlings put an attitude on Inevitable. All the crap comes from Inevitable from start to finish until finally Rawlings had enough. The biggest difference between me and Rawlings is that will always try to share with others in a civil way even when he probably knows they just keep being like Inevitable. Me. I saw what Inevitable was from the beginning, a phony.

Thanks to MD I think this will get easier as we go

Inevitable doesn't believe that. He doesn't believe in talking about tangible, objective facts. He believes what the atheists told him to believe about Rawlings. Rawlings was trying to talk with him about the issues and Inevitable just kept making personal attacks and smart ass remarks. I told you before Emily this is what relativists do. It doesn't matter whether they are atheists or theists. Look at the conversion between Rawlings and Inevitable. Where did Rawlings put an attitude on Inevitable. All the crap comes from Inevitable from start to finish until finally Rawlings had enough. The biggest difference between me and Rawlings is that he will always try to share with others in a civil way even when he probably knows they will just keep being like Inevitable. Me. I saw what Inevitable was from the beginning, a phony.

talk about personal attacks.

Dear Justin Davis and Inevitable:
Sorry to jump in and out of here.

Can I try to clarify some points, to start on the same page?

1. Inevitable: M.D. Rawlings did clarify before he went off on this focus on TAG,
that the point is to focus on the "universal logic" like math terms that just show
consistent relations between given definitions or concepts. So that's what he
MEANS by using logic to prove things.

He MADE IT CLEAR that he WASN'T focused on using SCIENCE.
(The same way Boss, me, GT, PercySunshine and others were saying
either we can't really know or prove God's truth logic or reasons because
that is beyond us, or how I agreed with GT and PS that "God can neither be proven nor disproven")
MD and JD say this by saying "Science can only verify or falsify but cannot prove absolutely)

So that's THEIR way of saying the same thing.

2. where we disagree is wehre to focus
JD and MD 's job is to focus on the TAG definitions
and that's enough to deal with.

Where I wanted to bring in GT Hollie and maybe you since we seem to agree that if anyone is going to make claims, this should be demonstrated by normal science like anything else in the natural world that has a real life application.

Is to set up formal medical studies, using the same peer reviewed scientific methods and professional publication standards, on Spiritual Healing
as ONE area that science CAN demonstrate on the level that most people consider proof.

JD and MD aren't focused on that part.

So they keep defending their TAG/logic approach by definition of God
that is going to run into contradictions if you make statements that conflict with that.

I think Hollie GT and others DON'T relate to this approach
which seems to them a set up game of circular definitions and not really proving
anything outside that system they are already outside of.

They relate to the Science, and I think this is where you and I might agree.

GT agreed to consider looking into this Spiritual Healing
if there is really any sign that science can prove/demonstrate it.

M.D. did post a message that he believes in Spiritual Healing
and he Strongly reiterated this concern that science be the focus not religion
or nobody woudl believe the research studies; we agreed it would have to be done right.

But for him, he and JD are focused on bringing peopel together who understand
the TAG approach.

Boss and BreezeWood don't relate to the way MD is framing and presenting it,
but they both believe in an Almighty supreme level just not the way MD is framing it
which sounds contradictory when applied to the context they are coming from.

I can't find any other nontheists or atheists who respond to TAG
and I pointed this out, that it is mainly used for a screening device
to diagnose who takes which approach or rejects another,
and can be used as a test at the end to see if we are really converging to the same page
and can tolerate TAG the way I do, neither pushing it as the only way
nor rejecting it as if it is misleading because I know it can be used correctly.

Inevitable, I'd like your help to work with Hollie GT and others
amrchaos also, about using science to prove/demonstrate Spiritual Healing is
valid, consistent, natural, safe, effective and inclusive of people of all faiths or no faith.

it is based on forgiveness, which people can have or not have
independent of faith, so some Christians struggle with forgiveness and
addictions until they are fully healed, and it isn't about the label or denomination
but it's about the LEVEL or stage of healing and forgiveness you are
that determines how well you reconcile conflicts with yourself or with others.

the more people, conflicts and difference you forgive
the more healing, wisdom and insights you receive to solve problems
that otherwise cause these conflicts and unforgiveness.

As Christians we know this, but practicing it and achieving
the Kingdom of God in real life is a whole other process,
and that's why we're here.

I think the TAG helps separate and identify people in groups,
and then we need people like you who can work with the different groups
and find out how to address and resolve things effectively.

I think the spiritual healing will help with
a. bridging this mental divide that science and religion have to reject each other
which isn't true and is preventing greater progress
b. forgiveness and healing the people involved in the process
from past grievances causing us to project our angst or blame onto others
as "symbols" of the groups or religious/anti-religious we associate with these conflicts
c. demonstrating that it's okay to use science to
explain spiritual things, and doesn't have to be done by religious preaching
ro TAG or anything people can't understand or relate to

so there are multiple benefits of ADDING a focus on
science and spiritual healing to go along with the teamwork
MD and JD can set up around this TAG approach which is just one part.

The three parts I would focus on
1. TAG and definitions of God and who works with which approach or team
(and who cannot stand or cannot communicate at all and require an interpreter to mediate)

2. Science and spiritual healing to prove/demonstrate
the patterns of healing and the factors/degrees of forgiveness or unforgiveness
in either resolving conflicts or failure to do so

3. applying spiritual healing to real world issues
that prevent or block people's faith that people of
various religions or scientific or political views can reconcile their conflicts
and actually achieve world peace if that's what we're saying is the
same thing as the Kingdom of God, and the coming of Jesus means
establishing equal justice and lasting peace for all people worldwide.
so physical applications to show that this spiritual healing/forgiveness
does transform our real world relations, nations and real life situations.
that is what some people need in order to see proof of God and the Bible,
so fine, let's put that on the list.

Where we are now, is people are still fighting over TAG #1
when we could be focused on #2 which would end the need to argue over #1.

People don't get this because they have taken exception, offense or insult
with each other and are hashing out grievances. When that dies down
maybe we can organize in teams for these three levels of proving we
can form a Consensus on God, Jesus, the Bible Christianity etc.
by aligning like terms, by teaching and receiving/sharing spiritual
healing and forgiveness to transform the way we look at the world
and relate to each other as equals not enemies, and then apply to real world
ills to solve real world problems as a team.

thanks inevitable

I think you are a valuable team member and future leader
that could see this longterm process through to its fulfillment
even after MD and I pass away, or die from getting clobbered first
or impaling ourselves on our own swords, the typical Hamlet dramatics.

It is always the Prince Paris and the players in the background who
carry on and bring peace to the land, when all the big heads fall victim
to their pride and ego. You seem balanced to me, so I trust you will
use your gifts wisely and do a better job than MD JD and me who
you can learn from, mostly by our mistakes and what it takes to straighten us out!

 

[G.T.]

Thanks to MD I think this will get easier as we go

Inevitable doesn't believe that. He doesn't believe in talking about tangible, objective facts. He believes what the atheists told him to believe about Rawlings.

I am interested in objective tangible facts, I just haven't seen any. I never heard from any atheists about that poster. What atheists are you talking about? When did they talk to me?

Rawlings was trying to talk with him about the issues and Inevitable just kept making personal attacks and smart ass remarks.

I told you before Emily this is what relativists do. It doesn't matter whether they are atheists or theists. Look at the conversion between Rawlings and Inevitable. Where did Rawlings put an attitude on Inevitable. All the crap comes from Inevitable from start to finish until finally Rawlings had enough. The biggest difference between me and Rawlings is that will always try to share with others in a civil way even when he probably knows they just keep being like Inevitable. Me. I saw what Inevitable was from the beginning, a phony.

Thanks to MD I think this will get easier as we go

Inevitable doesn't believe that. He doesn't believe in talking about tangible, objective facts. He believes what the atheists told him to believe about Rawlings. Rawlings was trying to talk with him about the issues and Inevitable just kept making personal attacks and smart ass remarks. I told you before Emily this is what relativists do. It doesn't matter whether they are atheists or theists. Look at the conversion between Rawlings and Inevitable. Where did Rawlings put an attitude on Inevitable. All the crap comes from Inevitable from start to finish until finally Rawlings had enough. The biggest difference between me and Rawlings is that he will always try to share with others in a civil way even when he probably knows they will just keep being like Inevitable. Me. I saw what Inevitable was from the beginning, a phony.

talk about personal attacks.

Dear Justin Davis and Inevitable:
Sorry to jump in and out of here.

Can I try to clarify some points, to start on the same page?

1. Inevitable: M.D. Rawlings did clarify before he went off on this focus on TAG,
that the point is to focus on the "universal logic" like math terms that just show
consistent relations between given definitions or concepts. So that's what he
MEANS by using logic to prove things.

He MADE IT CLEAR that he WASN'T focused on using SCIENCE.
(The same way Boss, me, GT, PercySunshine and others were saying
either we can't really know or prove God's truth logic or reasons because
that is beyond us, or how I agreed with GT and PS that "God can neither be proven nor disproven")
MD and JD say this by saying "Science can only verify or falsify but cannot prove absolutely)

So that's THEIR way of saying the same thing.

2. where we disagree is wehre to focus
JD and MD 's job is to focus on the TAG definitions
and that's enough to deal with.

Where I wanted to bring in GT Hollie and maybe you since we seem to agree that if anyone is going to make claims, this should be demonstrated by normal science like anything else in the natural world that has a real life application.

Is to set up formal medical studies, using the same peer reviewed scientific methods and professional publication standards, on Spiritual Healing
as ONE area that science CAN demonstrate on the level that most people consider proof.

JD and MD aren't focused on that part.

So they keep defending their TAG/logic approach by definition of God
that is going to run into contradictions if you make statements that conflict with that.

I think Hollie GT and others DON'T relate to this approach
which seems to them a set up game of circular definitions and not really proving
anything outside that system they are already outside of.

They relate to the Science, and I think this is where you and I might agree.

GT agreed to consider looking into this Spiritual Healing
if there is really any sign that science can prove/demonstrate it.

M.D. did post a message that he believes in Spiritual Healing
and he Strongly reiterated this concern that science be the focus not religion
or nobody woudl believe the research studies; we agreed it would have to be done right.

But for him, he and JD are focused on bringing peopel together who understand
the TAG approach.

Boss and BreezeWood don't relate to the way MD is framing and presenting it,
but they both believe in an Almighty supreme level just not the way MD is framing it
which sounds contradictory when applied to the context they are coming from.

I can't find any other nontheists or atheists who respond to TAG
and I pointed this out, that it is mainly used for a screening device
to diagnose who takes which approach or rejects another,
and can be used as a test at the end to see if we are really converging to the same page
and can tolerate TAG the way I do, neither pushing it as the only way
nor rejecting it as if it is misleading because I know it can be used correctly.

Inevitable, I'd like your help to work with Hollie GT and others
amrchaos also, about using science to prove/demonstrate Spiritual Healing is
valid, consistent, natural, safe, effective and inclusive of people of all faiths or no faith.

it is based on forgiveness, which people can have or not have
independent of faith, so some Christians struggle with forgiveness and
addictions until they are fully healed, and it isn't about the label or denomination
but it's about the LEVEL or stage of healing and forgiveness you are
that determines how well you reconcile conflicts with yourself or with others.

the more people, conflicts and difference you forgive
the more healing, wisdom and insights you receive to solve problems
that otherwise cause these conflicts and unforgiveness.

As Christians we know this, but practicing it and achieving
the Kingdom of God in real life is a whole other process,
and that's why we're here.

I think the TAG helps separate and identify people in groups,
and then we need people like you who can work with the different groups
and find out how to address and resolve things effectively.

I think the spiritual healing will help with
a. bridging this mental divide that science and religion have to reject each other
which isn't true and is preventing greater progress
b. forgiveness and healing the people involved in the process
from past grievances causing us to project our angst or blame onto others
as "symbols" of the groups or religious/anti-religious we associate with these conflicts
c. demonstrating that it's okay to use science to
explain spiritual things, and doesn't have to be done by religious preaching
ro TAG or anything people can't understand or relate to

so there are multiple benefits of ADDING a focus on
science and spiritual healing to go along with the teamwork
MD and JD can set up around this TAG approach which is just one part.

The three parts I would focus on
1. TAG and definitions of God and who works with which approach or team
(and who cannot stand or cannot communicate at all and require an interpreter to mediate)

2. Science and spiritual healing to prove/demonstrate
the patterns of healing and the factors/degrees of forgiveness or unforgiveness
in either resolving conflicts or failure to do so

3. applying spiritual healing to real world issues
that prevent or block people's faith that people of
various religions or scientific or political views can reconcile their conflicts
and actually achieve world peace if that's what we're saying is the
same thing as the Kingdom of God, and the coming of Jesus means
establishing equal justice and lasting peace for all people worldwide.
so physical applications to show that this spiritual healing/forgiveness
does transform our real world relations, nations and real life situations.
that is what some people need in order to see proof of God and the Bible,
so fine, let's put that on the list.

Where we are now, is people are still fighting over TAG #1
when we could be focused on #2 which would end the need to argue over #1.

People don't get this because they have taken exception, offense or insult
with each other and are hashing out grievances. When that dies down
maybe we can organize in teams for these three levels of proving we
can form a Consensus on God, Jesus, the Bible Christianity etc.
by aligning like terms, by teaching and receiving/sharing spiritual
healing and forgiveness to transform the way we look at the world
and relate to each other as equals not enemies, and then apply to real world
ills to solve real world problems as a team.

thanks inevitable

I think you are a valuable team member and future leader
that could see this longterm process through to its fulfillment
even after MD and I pass away, or die from getting clobbered first
or impaling ourselves on our own swords, the typical Hamlet dramatics.

It is always the Prince Paris and the players in the background who
carry on and bring peace to the land, when all the big heads fall victim
to their pride and ego. You seem balanced to me, so I trust you will
use your gifts wisely and do a better job than MD JD and me who
you can learn from, mostly by our mistakes and what it takes to straighten us out!

Do you approve or disapprove of MD & justin calling inevitable a "faggot" several times?

See, Emily, in my opinion you need to stop wasting your valuable time on trying to bring certain people together with certain others. I told you, for me personally already, that I'd never associate on a cordial level with vile human beings such as these over the internet. It's 2014 and they're calling a homosexual man a "faggot" just for asking them questions, in a completely cordial manner.

This is not the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak, with these two juvenile delinquents. It's just more-so reinforcing what I already told you and now you see even more evidence for it. Shit, they even denigrated YOU several times, so, you largely waste your time here and I'm just trying to help you out.

Also, to save more of your time, don't type some long winded response about forgiveness. I know all about forgiveness, it's just not something I choose to practice on this occasion. That's not up for change.

 

[emilynghiem]

OK M.D. Rawlings and Justin Davis
Can we please stop and address this sock account accusation?
I want to know also what are the difference between you that make a difference.

Justin said he is working on some plumbing, is in between contracting jobs
right now, but will soon have to leave us if that job pulls him away.

I DOUBT that any plumber I know can cite ten million
philosophical points to answer one tiny thing like M.D. does, that
Justin who has no time for this will just answer "No you're a phony."

Can you straighten out
A. what denomination are both of you
what were you brought up
which was your first church(es) you attended in which cities
and which affiliation do you most relate to know

B. what is your profession
M.D. said he was a NCO (noncommissioned officer)
where did you serve last, what was your job or title.
What kind of work do you do now?

Justin said he was a plumber
Can you list some major jobs or vendors you work with

C. What was the first thread topic you responded on USMB
and what led you to connect to this one with MD

D. if you want to give your age, city
or your wives' names or whatever,
I'm sick of wasting time on false accusations.

If you are the same person say so now
and let's just deal with it. i'm happy either way
just want total transparency so that other
people will open up and be transparent also
and know it's perfectly safe, to be wrong,
to change our minds, to admit we don't know
or don't agree or we have to correct something.

We need to have free speech on here if
we are going to talk through this.

So any barrier causing conflict has to go!

 

[Boss]

Bottom line: your position, while trying to simultaneously assert theism. is especially untenable, bizarre, crazy, stupid! There is a reason that in the history of theism virtually no one, except for cultish space cadets like you, hold to this nonsense! It undermines and contradicts theism, you idiot!

Well I am not really a "theist" as much as a Spiritualist. However, from what I know of theism, all theistic belief centers on a God who is omniscient and omnipotent.

Omniscient definition, having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, or understanding; perceiving all things.

Omnipotent definition, almighty or infinite in power, as God.

You are arguing to the contrary of this, yet you still want to run back to it when challenged. I'm starting to wonder if you and Justin aren't Atheists trying to punk us.

And how about STOP exploiting other posters and pretending they are your allies here. No one that I can see is agreeing with you on any damn thing, except for Justin.

Dear Boss:
Whether or not MD "focuses" on the fact that "we don't know in terms of SCIENCE know things" (which he SAID is DELIBERATELY avoiding to focus on the logic/definitions for what we call God), that is still a GIVEN.

MD may not acknowledge this under your terms.

Only if you say it under HIS terms, his way being that SCIENCE does not "prove" anything (ie man's knowledge is limited in this sense) then you can get an agreement out of him.

He is not going to change to your terms, or mine, for saying the same thing.

M.D. objected to my interpretation of Godel as saying man's knowledge was based on hand-me-down information while only God's knowledge was straight from the source.
I thought that was saying the "same thing" but

==> M.D. Objected <==

So he is just not getting that you and I are saying the SAME THING
he means when he says "man's science doesn't prove things."

Boss he is not able to toggle back and forth between "relative"
expressions of the same thing.

If you can't do this either, you and he will continue to fight
like Bulldogs or Pit Bulls wanting to control the rhetoric.

The concept is given. We can't argue it.

What is off is that M.D. says it a "different way"
and for WHATEVER reason cannot handle
anyone else saying the same concept in other terms.

He wants everyone to "conform" to his terminology to
get everyone on the same page. He can't deal with relative expressions,
even though we all know we aren't God and can't contain that knowledge.

M.D. is saying there is universal REPRESENTATION for God
that is based on pure LOGIC DEFINITIONS so if you agree to
align with those, then these are consistent.

He ACKNOWLEDGES that using Science isn't "really going to prove anything absolutely" == presumably for the reasons you point out.

For whatever reason he REJECTS when it is Stated or Explained that way.

Only if you say it HIS WAY that man's science only verifies or falsifies
but does not prove, then he can tell you are on the same page with him.

So I also had to drop whatever way I used of saying or interpreting or agreeing with
GT on this concept, and just stick with MD's way of saying it.

Boss it is like if I am multilingual and can say the same thing in
German, Spanish, Russian and English,
But MD only speaks English
well of COURSE I'm going to stick to saying it in English.

it isn't MD fault his brain only works in one mode
like I can only speak English and just go to pieces when I have to
try to think in French or Vietnamese; my brain doesn't go there very easily.

MD language is hardwired and he just doesn't get this
concept of relative expressions for the same thing. His brain
isn't designed to diversify, that's someone else's job like mine,
but he's designed to be bull headed in charge of keeping the pack
on the same page, so he rejects anything that doesn't fit in that set.

it's not personal, it's spiritual, it's part of his design and purpose.

So if that's how he works, I try to stick to that.

just like if a cello has a different range of notes than
a piano, then you let the cello stay in that range.

you don't ask the cello to play notes in a different range or key
that isn't natural for that instrument.

You translate the same song or melody line or harmony
into the range of that instrument, and we can still play along.

MD doesn't play different instruments so he doesn't get that.
it's not his talent, he has other things he needs to be focused on.

I understand what MD's problem is, emily. I also get where you're coming from, trying to patiently wade through all the arguments and bring us together for the common good. I respect the nobility of what you are trying to do and wish you the best of luck. I just don't have patience with people who constantly insult and attack me but expect me to see their point of view. Especially if their view conflicts with mine in a fundamental way. It's just not going to happen, sorry.

MD and Justin want to promote their incarnation of God above all others, and that is simply unacceptable to me. It's why I am not a "religious" person and never will be. I think they have done more to justify Hollie's antipathy for religion than anyone else in this thread. It is this kind of narrow-minded stubborn thinking that leads to religious fanaticism and extremism, which is not good for humanity. I don't have a problem with their view, I am not "fighting" with them here, I am simply disagreeing that they have "proven" things to anyone other than themselves.

As MD has tried to debate the human concept of thought known as "logic" it becomes increasingly apparent that he isn't discussing "logic" at all, he is conflating "logic" with "truth" and assuming they are the same thing. It's not that we are playing different instruments, it's that MD is playing a Sea Bass... and you can tune a piano but you can't tuna fish!

 

[emilynghiem]

Thanks to MD I think this will get easier as we go

Inevitable doesn't believe that. He doesn't believe in talking about tangible, objective facts. He believes what the atheists told him to believe about Rawlings.

I am interested in objective tangible facts, I just haven't seen any. I never heard from any atheists about that poster. What atheists are you talking about? When did they talk to me?

Rawlings was trying to talk with him about the issues and Inevitable just kept making personal attacks and smart ass remarks.

I told you before Emily this is what relativists do. It doesn't matter whether they are atheists or theists. Look at the conversion between Rawlings and Inevitable. Where did Rawlings put an attitude on Inevitable. All the crap comes from Inevitable from start to finish until finally Rawlings had enough. The biggest difference between me and Rawlings is that will always try to share with others in a civil way even when he probably knows they just keep being like Inevitable. Me. I saw what Inevitable was from the beginning, a phony.

Thanks to MD I think this will get easier as we go

Inevitable doesn't believe that. He doesn't believe in talking about tangible, objective facts. He believes what the atheists told him to believe about Rawlings. Rawlings was trying to talk with him about the issues and Inevitable just kept making personal attacks and smart ass remarks. I told you before Emily this is what relativists do. It doesn't matter whether they are atheists or theists. Look at the conversion between Rawlings and Inevitable. Where did Rawlings put an attitude on Inevitable. All the crap comes from Inevitable from start to finish until finally Rawlings had enough. The biggest difference between me and Rawlings is that he will always try to share with others in a civil way even when he probably knows they will just keep being like Inevitable. Me. I saw what Inevitable was from the beginning, a phony.

talk about personal attacks.

Dear Justin Davis and Inevitable:
Sorry to jump in and out of here.

Can I try to clarify some points, to start on the same page?

1. Inevitable: M.D. Rawlings did clarify before he went off on this focus on TAG,
that the point is to focus on the "universal logic" like math terms that just show
consistent relations between given definitions or concepts. So that's what he
MEANS by using logic to prove things.

He MADE IT CLEAR that he WASN'T focused on using SCIENCE.
(The same way Boss, me, GT, PercySunshine and others were saying
either we can't really know or prove God's truth logic or reasons because
that is beyond us, or how I agreed with GT and PS that "God can neither be proven nor disproven")
MD and JD say this by saying "Science can only verify or falsify but cannot prove absolutely)

So that's THEIR way of saying the same thing.

2. where we disagree is wehre to focus
JD and MD 's job is to focus on the TAG definitions
and that's enough to deal with.

Where I wanted to bring in GT Hollie and maybe you since we seem to agree that if anyone is going to make claims, this should be demonstrated by normal science like anything else in the natural world that has a real life application.

Is to set up formal medical studies, using the same peer reviewed scientific methods and professional publication standards, on Spiritual Healing
as ONE area that science CAN demonstrate on the level that most people consider proof.

JD and MD aren't focused on that part.

So they keep defending their TAG/logic approach by definition of God
that is going to run into contradictions if you make statements that conflict with that.

I think Hollie GT and others DON'T relate to this approach
which seems to them a set up game of circular definitions and not really proving
anything outside that system they are already outside of.

They relate to the Science, and I think this is where you and I might agree.

GT agreed to consider looking into this Spiritual Healing
if there is really any sign that science can prove/demonstrate it.

M.D. did post a message that he believes in Spiritual Healing
and he Strongly reiterated this concern that science be the focus not religion
or nobody woudl believe the research studies; we agreed it would have to be done right.

But for him, he and JD are focused on bringing peopel together who understand
the TAG approach.

Boss and BreezeWood don't relate to the way MD is framing and presenting it,
but they both believe in an Almighty supreme level just not the way MD is framing it
which sounds contradictory when applied to the context they are coming from.

I can't find any other nontheists or atheists who respond to TAG
and I pointed this out, that it is mainly used for a screening device
to diagnose who takes which approach or rejects another,
and can be used as a test at the end to see if we are really converging to the same page
and can tolerate TAG the way I do, neither pushing it as the only way
nor rejecting it as if it is misleading because I know it can be used correctly.

Inevitable, I'd like your help to work with Hollie GT and others
amrchaos also, about using science to prove/demonstrate Spiritual Healing is
valid, consistent, natural, safe, effective and inclusive of people of all faiths or no faith.

it is based on forgiveness, which people can have or not have
independent of faith, so some Christians struggle with forgiveness and
addictions until they are fully healed, and it isn't about the label or denomination
but it's about the LEVEL or stage of healing and forgiveness you are
that determines how well you reconcile conflicts with yourself or with others.

the more people, conflicts and difference you forgive
the more healing, wisdom and insights you receive to solve problems
that otherwise cause these conflicts and unforgiveness.

As Christians we know this, but practicing it and achieving
the Kingdom of God in real life is a whole other process,
and that's why we're here.

I think the TAG helps separate and identify people in groups,
and then we need people like you who can work with the different groups
and find out how to address and resolve things effectively.

I think the spiritual healing will help with
a. bridging this mental divide that science and religion have to reject each other
which isn't true and is preventing greater progress
b. forgiveness and healing the people involved in the process
from past grievances causing us to project our angst or blame onto others
as "symbols" of the groups or religious/anti-religious we associate with these conflicts
c. demonstrating that it's okay to use science to
explain spiritual things, and doesn't have to be done by religious preaching
ro TAG or anything people can't understand or relate to

so there are multiple benefits of ADDING a focus on
science and spiritual healing to go along with the teamwork
MD and JD can set up around this TAG approach which is just one part.

The three parts I would focus on
1. TAG and definitions of God and who works with which approach or team
(and who cannot stand or cannot communicate at all and require an interpreter to mediate)

2. Science and spiritual healing to prove/demonstrate
the patterns of healing and the factors/degrees of forgiveness or unforgiveness
in either resolving conflicts or failure to do so

3. applying spiritual healing to real world issues
that prevent or block people's faith that people of
various religions or scientific or political views can reconcile their conflicts
and actually achieve world peace if that's what we're saying is the
same thing as the Kingdom of God, and the coming of Jesus means
establishing equal justice and lasting peace for all people worldwide.
so physical applications to show that this spiritual healing/forgiveness
does transform our real world relations, nations and real life situations.
that is what some people need in order to see proof of God and the Bible,
so fine, let's put that on the list.

Where we are now, is people are still fighting over TAG #1
when we could be focused on #2 which would end the need to argue over #1.

People don't get this because they have taken exception, offense or insult
with each other and are hashing out grievances. When that dies down
maybe we can organize in teams for these three levels of proving we
can form a Consensus on God, Jesus, the Bible Christianity etc.
by aligning like terms, by teaching and receiving/sharing spiritual
healing and forgiveness to transform the way we look at the world
and relate to each other as equals not enemies, and then apply to real world
ills to solve real world problems as a team.

thanks inevitable

I think you are a valuable team member and future leader
that could see this longterm process through to its fulfillment
even after MD and I pass away, or die from getting clobbered first
or impaling ourselves on our own swords, the typical Hamlet dramatics.

It is always the Prince Paris and the players in the background who
carry on and bring peace to the land, when all the big heads fall victim
to their pride and ego. You seem balanced to me, so I trust you will
use your gifts wisely and do a better job than MD JD and me who
you can learn from, mostly by our mistakes and what it takes to straighten us out!

Do you approve or disapprove of MD & justin calling inevitable a "faggot" several times?

See, Emily, in my opinion you need to stop wasting your valuable time on trying to bring certain people together with certain others. I told you, for me personally already, that I'd never associate on a cordial level with vile human beings such as these over the internet. It's 2014 and they're calling a homosexual man a "faggot" just for asking them questions, in a completely cordial manner.

This is not the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak, with these two juvenile delinquents. It's just more-so reinforcing what I already told you and now you see even more evidence for it. Shit, they even denigrated YOU several times, so, you largely waste your time here and I'm just trying to help you out.

Also, to save more of your time, don't type some long winded response about forgiveness. I know all about forgiveness, it's just not something I choose to practice on this occasion. That's not up for change.

No I don't agree with MD calling people faggot (unless it's like how my bf and brothers call each other gay boy, fag face, and other names sorta like the way I know guys who call each other ******* and that's cool with them in that context)

If people AGREE to call each other names,
like I might call MD 'babycakes' if he just gets too worked up and needs to come back down to earth where everyone else is.

But no, if someone says "please don't call me that, or please don't use those terms"
I believe we need to respect that.

Hollie is also calling people JW or many are still saying MD=JD
so we need to agree who is who, what is what, what we
agree to be called and what we don't. And stick to that
if we are going to communicate like civil adults.

GT just because I forgive a lot does not mean I condone it.
I'm trying to uncover the root of all this, so we can fix it at the core.
and then it won't keep coming out as name calls insults or weird accusations.

 

[G.T.]

Thanks to MD I think this will get easier as we go

Inevitable doesn't believe that. He doesn't believe in talking about tangible, objective facts. He believes what the atheists told him to believe about Rawlings.

I am interested in objective tangible facts, I just haven't seen any. I never heard from any atheists about that poster. What atheists are you talking about? When did they talk to me?

Rawlings was trying to talk with him about the issues and Inevitable just kept making personal attacks and smart ass remarks.

I told you before Emily this is what relativists do. It doesn't matter whether they are atheists or theists. Look at the conversion between Rawlings and Inevitable. Where did Rawlings put an attitude on Inevitable. All the crap comes from Inevitable from start to finish until finally Rawlings had enough. The biggest difference between me and Rawlings is that will always try to share with others in a civil way even when he probably knows they just keep being like Inevitable. Me. I saw what Inevitable was from the beginning, a phony.

Thanks to MD I think this will get easier as we go

Inevitable doesn't believe that. He doesn't believe in talking about tangible, objective facts. He believes what the atheists told him to believe about Rawlings. Rawlings was trying to talk with him about the issues and Inevitable just kept making personal attacks and smart ass remarks. I told you before Emily this is what relativists do. It doesn't matter whether they are atheists or theists. Look at the conversion between Rawlings and Inevitable. Where did Rawlings put an attitude on Inevitable. All the crap comes from Inevitable from start to finish until finally Rawlings had enough. The biggest difference between me and Rawlings is that he will always try to share with others in a civil way even when he probably knows they will just keep being like Inevitable. Me. I saw what Inevitable was from the beginning, a phony.

talk about personal attacks.

Dear Justin Davis and Inevitable:
Sorry to jump in and out of here.

Can I try to clarify some points, to start on the same page?

1. Inevitable: M.D. Rawlings did clarify before he went off on this focus on TAG,
that the point is to focus on the "universal logic" like math terms that just show
consistent relations between given definitions or concepts. So that's what he
MEANS by using logic to prove things.

He MADE IT CLEAR that he WASN'T focused on using SCIENCE.
(The same way Boss, me, GT, PercySunshine and others were saying
either we can't really know or prove God's truth logic or reasons because
that is beyond us, or how I agreed with GT and PS that "God can neither be proven nor disproven")
MD and JD say this by saying "Science can only verify or falsify but cannot prove absolutely)

So that's THEIR way of saying the same thing.

2. where we disagree is wehre to focus
JD and MD 's job is to focus on the TAG definitions
and that's enough to deal with.

Where I wanted to bring in GT Hollie and maybe you since we seem to agree that if anyone is going to make claims, this should be demonstrated by normal science like anything else in the natural world that has a real life application.

Is to set up formal medical studies, using the same peer reviewed scientific methods and professional publication standards, on Spiritual Healing
as ONE area that science CAN demonstrate on the level that most people consider proof.

JD and MD aren't focused on that part.

So they keep defending their TAG/logic approach by definition of God
that is going to run into contradictions if you make statements that conflict with that.

I think Hollie GT and others DON'T relate to this approach
which seems to them a set up game of circular definitions and not really proving
anything outside that system they are already outside of.

They relate to the Science, and I think this is where you and I might agree.

GT agreed to consider looking into this Spiritual Healing
if there is really any sign that science can prove/demonstrate it.

M.D. did post a message that he believes in Spiritual Healing
and he Strongly reiterated this concern that science be the focus not religion
or nobody woudl believe the research studies; we agreed it would have to be done right.

But for him, he and JD are focused on bringing peopel together who understand
the TAG approach.

Boss and BreezeWood don't relate to the way MD is framing and presenting it,
but they both believe in an Almighty supreme level just not the way MD is framing it
which sounds contradictory when applied to the context they are coming from.

I can't find any other nontheists or atheists who respond to TAG
and I pointed this out, that it is mainly used for a screening device
to diagnose who takes which approach or rejects another,
and can be used as a test at the end to see if we are really converging to the same page
and can tolerate TAG the way I do, neither pushing it as the only way
nor rejecting it as if it is misleading because I know it can be used correctly.

Inevitable, I'd like your help to work with Hollie GT and others
amrchaos also, about using science to prove/demonstrate Spiritual Healing is
valid, consistent, natural, safe, effective and inclusive of people of all faiths or no faith.

it is based on forgiveness, which people can have or not have
independent of faith, so some Christians struggle with forgiveness and
addictions until they are fully healed, and it isn't about the label or denomination
but it's about the LEVEL or stage of healing and forgiveness you are
that determines how well you reconcile conflicts with yourself or with others.

the more people, conflicts and difference you forgive
the more healing, wisdom and insights you receive to solve problems
that otherwise cause these conflicts and unforgiveness.

As Christians we know this, but practicing it and achieving
the Kingdom of God in real life is a whole other process,
and that's why we're here.

I think the TAG helps separate and identify people in groups,
and then we need people like you who can work with the different groups
and find out how to address and resolve things effectively.

I think the spiritual healing will help with
a. bridging this mental divide that science and religion have to reject each other
which isn't true and is preventing greater progress
b. forgiveness and healing the people involved in the process
from past grievances causing us to project our angst or blame onto others
as "symbols" of the groups or religious/anti-religious we associate with these conflicts
c. demonstrating that it's okay to use science to
explain spiritual things, and doesn't have to be done by religious preaching
ro TAG or anything people can't understand or relate to

so there are multiple benefits of ADDING a focus on
science and spiritual healing to go along with the teamwork
MD and JD can set up around this TAG approach which is just one part.

The three parts I would focus on
1. TAG and definitions of God and who works with which approach or team
(and who cannot stand or cannot communicate at all and require an interpreter to mediate)

2. Science and spiritual healing to prove/demonstrate
the patterns of healing and the factors/degrees of forgiveness or unforgiveness
in either resolving conflicts or failure to do so

3. applying spiritual healing to real world issues
that prevent or block people's faith that people of
various religions or scientific or political views can reconcile their conflicts
and actually achieve world peace if that's what we're saying is the
same thing as the Kingdom of God, and the coming of Jesus means
establishing equal justice and lasting peace for all people worldwide.
so physical applications to show that this spiritual healing/forgiveness
does transform our real world relations, nations and real life situations.
that is what some people need in order to see proof of God and the Bible,
so fine, let's put that on the list.

Where we are now, is people are still fighting over TAG #1
when we could be focused on #2 which would end the need to argue over #1.

People don't get this because they have taken exception, offense or insult
with each other and are hashing out grievances. When that dies down
maybe we can organize in teams for these three levels of proving we
can form a Consensus on God, Jesus, the Bible Christianity etc.
by aligning like terms, by teaching and receiving/sharing spiritual
healing and forgiveness to transform the way we look at the world
and relate to each other as equals not enemies, and then apply to real world
ills to solve real world problems as a team.

thanks inevitable

I think you are a valuable team member and future leader
that could see this longterm process through to its fulfillment
even after MD and I pass away, or die from getting clobbered first
or impaling ourselves on our own swords, the typical Hamlet dramatics.

It is always the Prince Paris and the players in the background who
carry on and bring peace to the land, when all the big heads fall victim
to their pride and ego. You seem balanced to me, so I trust you will
use your gifts wisely and do a better job than MD JD and me who
you can learn from, mostly by our mistakes and what it takes to straighten us out!

Do you approve or disapprove of MD & justin calling inevitable a "faggot" several times?

See, Emily, in my opinion you need to stop wasting your valuable time on trying to bring certain people together with certain others. I told you, for me personally already, that I'd never associate on a cordial level with vile human beings such as these over the internet. It's 2014 and they're calling a homosexual man a "faggot" just for asking them questions, in a completely cordial manner.

This is not the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak, with these two juvenile delinquents. It's just more-so reinforcing what I already told you and now you see even more evidence for it. Shit, they even denigrated YOU several times, so, you largely waste your time here and I'm just trying to help you out.

Also, to save more of your time, don't type some long winded response about forgiveness. I know all about forgiveness, it's just not something I choose to practice on this occasion. That's not up for change.

No I don't agree with MD calling people faggot (unless it's like how my bf and brothers call each other gay boy, fag face, and other names sorta like the way I know guys who call each other ******* and that's cool with them in that context)

If people AGREE to call each other names,
like I might call MD 'babycakes' if he just gets too worked up and needs to come back down to earth where everyone else is.

But no, if someone says "please don't call me that, or please don't use those terms"
I believe we need to respect that.

Hollie is also calling people JW or many are still saying MD=JD
so we need to agree who is who, what is what, what we
agree to be called and what we don't. And stick to that
if we are going to communicate like civil adults.

GT just because I forgive a lot does not mean I condone it.
I'm trying to uncover the root of all this, so we can fix it at the core.
and then it won't keep coming out as name calls insults or weird accusations.

Well, in their defense, once they became pompous dicks - - - - - I started responding in kind that way.

But anyhoo, this line slayed me for some reason: "(unless it's like how my bf and brothers call each other gay boy, fag face, and other names"

It gave me a good belly laugh I'm not sure why, It's because I picture you as some 75yr old lady and those words coming from one of your typings just seemed like comedy to me, lol.

 

[G.T.]

OK M.D. Rawlings and Justin Davis
Can we please stop and address this sock account accusation?
I want to know also what are the difference between you that make a difference.

Justin said he is working on some plumbing, is in between contracting jobs
right now, but will soon have to leave us if that job pulls him away.

I DOUBT that any plumber I know can cite ten million
philosophical points to answer one tiny thing like M.D. does, that
Justin who has no time for this will just answer "No you're a phony."

Can you straighten out
A. what denomination are both of you
what were you brought up
which was your first church(es) you attended in which cities
and which affiliation do you most relate to know

B. what is your profession
M.D. said he was a NCO (noncommissioned officer)
where did you serve last, what was your job or title.
What kind of work do you do now?

Justin said he was a plumber
Can you list some major jobs or vendors you work with

C. What was the first thread topic you responded on USMB
and what led you to connect to this one with MD

D. if you want to give your age, city
or your wives' names or whatever,
I'm sick of wasting time on false accusations.

If you are the same person say so now
and let's just deal with it. i'm happy either way
just want total transparency so that other
people will open up and be transparent also
and know it's perfectly safe, to be wrong,
to change our minds, to admit we don't know
or don't agree or we have to correct something.

We need to have free speech on here if
we are going to talk through this.

So any barrier causing conflict has to go!

I picture Chris Tucker responding to this post, like this:

"nigga, you want his social security number and his height and weight too?"

 

[emilynghiem]

Gateaux means from the hood

so instead of being the GOTO person
it's about being the Gateaux person?

is that Ghetto speak?
or Gateaux speak?

Seriously
GT do you or amrchaos or Inevitable
have any suggestions what TERMS to use
for explaining the distinction
Boss means by man's logic as less than God's
vs.
Justin and MD trying to stick with God's logic
and represent that using Man's logic terms.

They are talking in circles using "logic" in 3-4 different contexts.
Can you wonder why they all think the other is skewing it.

Reminds me of a very tragic case in Dallas
where the authorities questioned if the mother (from India)
had killed her son found dead, and she nodded her head no
which they took to mean yes. So they filed in the police report
she had confessed to killing her son, because her Indian
gestures were mistaken and misread to mean the OPPOSITE.
She was a grieving mother who sacrificed her career to be
at home and tend to her seriously ill son, and when he died of
one of the seizures, she kept his body on ice until the Father
got home from out of town so the family could handle the burial rites
according to Indian cultural tradition. Instead both parents killed
themselves when they could not overturn the charges of murder
caused by miscommunication and cultural differences.

Here is not so serious, but Justin has basically given us all
the death penalty mentally, accusing us of being phony because we
can't seem to communicate what we mean and he can't connect
it to what he is trying to say either. So we sound fake to him that
we are just talking mumbo jumbo for the sake of arguing in circles
over nothing when it is all plain as day to him.

clearly we are not connecting so we sound completely
off base and going around in our own circles and not
any plane of reality that the other person is coming from.

whoever can see that we are all experiencing similar "blank outs"
will quit the business of namecalling accusing or insulting anyone for this.

the key is to align each of these systems by parallels
especially if our worlds do not intersect. they
may mirror each other and we need to align
the "equivalent" terms principles or relations
in each system. And the parallels drawn may not be the
same for the next person, but each may need to be
resolved distinctly.

Boss is describing the relation with "logic" in a different way
to divide up the "spectrum or context" differently
so this is not going to match with Justin or MD.
instead of fighting over whose system is going to
dominate or replace theother, I'm saying to let
each person KEEP their own system and
translate where things lie under both systems
and line up the similar concepts that are close equivalents.

G.T. if you can work with Boss to hunt around
for better terms or descriptions to specify what
Boss is talking about where Justin and MD agree
that is true in their system, I can try to work with
MD and Justin with the terms they use on their side.

by trial and error, hit or miss, something has to align
because we are all trying to desribe how human nature
relates to the higher or collective level of truth/knowledge/logic.

the content underneath is the same for all people
but our expressions for these abstract levels
can get very complex (the Buddhist have even more
different terms for the levels of awareness that
American English does not distinguish from each other).
In Eskimo language there are more words for SNOW
while we only have one. And Greeks had different
words for the different types of LOVE while English
requires modifiers. So what about God and logic,
how many different levels or aspect could we
quantify there?

First, when Boss says "God created logic" then I feel that we are far a field of conceiving this God.

When Boss talks of "God's logic" I can only assume that there is some abstract method that this God created for itself to follow in terms of this creation. I am not even sure if this God can change "God's logic" at will, but it seems like it can.


I guess a BAD analogy is like a programing languge(like C ++) on a computer versus the Operating system that makes programming possible. The programming language is Man logic. All logic(programming language) only works on the computer because the programmer(God) set up the operating system(God's logic) for that program to work on.

In such a situation, God can wipe out the old operating system and put in a totally different operating system, and then put mans logic(programming language) can be placed back on that computer but the way it interacts with the new OS maybe different than how it worked with the old OS.

In this case, God's logic is the framework for man's logic to work on.

^ This is a pretty good analogy ^

MD and JD are blending it together and calling the whole system of God's logic the logic they ARE representing.

Boss is picking at the programming language,
and I also pointed out it can be written in different ways, not just
using TAG verbatim but substituting other symbols and still using the overall
same pattern or format at TAG uses.

JD and MD both thought that was "assumed" that God means more than just "Creator" or "source of knowledge," but then keep sticking to TAG based on that.

Boss GT and others have such personal grievances against MD for his own language and offensive ways he's objected to people, they aren't willing to forgive and focus on just the language issues. They are arguing the personal issues with why MD resorts to name calls outside the TAG content.

I don't blame them.

But that confounds and compounds the problem, like pouring gas on fire.

So I appreciate you/amrchaos and Inevitable for not getting distracted with that.

At least you stick with the points. the people who can't are part of the healing process, and unfortunately MD's attitude is bringing out those issues to be addressed and resolved MUTUALLY so only if BOTH sides give and take can they get past this stage.

We'll see if MD and JD are both Christians to the point of forgiving and accepting resolution; or if they prove themselves to be the antagonistic type who don't really forgive but keep expecting other people to. I hate that, but it happens. Some people don't get it, and it's especially sad to see Christians who don't get their own faith which is powerful and can overcome these things with forgiveness that can heal and transform relations like new.

We'll see if they follow the calling to stick to their faith, and give up whatever unforgiven
issues are causing them to name call like a bunch of heathens who resort to that!

 

[BreezeWood]

Boss conflates the universal laws of logic with the exclusive powers of divinity

No, that's what YOU continue to do, TROLL!

Boss is reduced to the accolades of the morons he once detested. How pathetic. How very sad.

The Stars draw back the shroud and peep,
Shake their bearded chins, cast their pearly eyes away and weep.​

Taps playing

Have we now moved to "chants and incantations"?

BreezeWood added a Lamentation:
God God why have you forsaken me!

And I could add a prayer for God's mercy and benevolence:
Bismillah Al-Rahman Al-Raheem
in the "Struggle" for Peace or spiritual battle for the human conscience
to overcome ill and achieve true peace which surpasses all human misunderstanding.

Or for whichever of us, if anyone here, is JW:
Jehovah Akbar!

MD has declared TAG Jihad on the world!
Surrender Infidels! And your little dog, too....

BreezeWood added a Lamentation:

mdr: The relativist thought they were going to run this thread. LOL! Wrong. Not this time.


relativist = liberal = / = mdr > mdr = conservative = absolutionist = the opressed / martyrdom = orthodox Christian



reality =

= absolutionist = orthodox Christian


mdr offers nothing new in revision to prove God's existence than using modern language as a similarly oppressive tool as the RACK used during the Spanish inquisition.


Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani

no Emily, the answer will never be an absolutionsts (bible) declaration for religion without there being the accommodation for an everchanging, relativist universe.

 

[G.T.]

I recommend ASMR videos to people, because it's a great tingly feeling and it's very rewarding to be able to relax like that.

Here is the homey Dmitri, who always makes a great relaxation video.

Cutting up the tension in this thread is probably a good thing. Let this be an intermission. Let Dmitri hold your consciousness and squeeze the life out of it until it catches a great nap.

 

[emilynghiem]

Inevitable doesn't believe that. He doesn't believe in talking about tangible, objective facts. He believes what the atheists told him to believe about Rawlings.

I am interested in objective tangible facts, I just haven't seen any. I never heard from any atheists about that poster. What atheists are you talking about? When did they talk to me?

Rawlings was trying to talk with him about the issues and Inevitable just kept making personal attacks and smart ass remarks.

I told you before Emily this is what relativists do. It doesn't matter whether they are atheists or theists. Look at the conversion between Rawlings and Inevitable. Where did Rawlings put an attitude on Inevitable. All the crap comes from Inevitable from start to finish until finally Rawlings had enough. The biggest difference between me and Rawlings is that will always try to share with others in a civil way even when he probably knows they just keep being like Inevitable. Me. I saw what Inevitable was from the beginning, a phony.

Inevitable doesn't believe that. He doesn't believe in talking about tangible, objective facts. He believes what the atheists told him to believe about Rawlings. Rawlings was trying to talk with him about the issues and Inevitable just kept making personal attacks and smart ass remarks. I told you before Emily this is what relativists do. It doesn't matter whether they are atheists or theists. Look at the conversion between Rawlings and Inevitable. Where did Rawlings put an attitude on Inevitable. All the crap comes from Inevitable from start to finish until finally Rawlings had enough. The biggest difference between me and Rawlings is that he will always try to share with others in a civil way even when he probably knows they will just keep being like Inevitable. Me. I saw what Inevitable was from the beginning, a phony.

talk about personal attacks.

Dear Justin Davis and Inevitable:
Sorry to jump in and out of here.

Can I try to clarify some points, to start on the same page?

1. Inevitable: M.D. Rawlings did clarify before he went off on this focus on TAG,
that the point is to focus on the "universal logic" like math terms that just show
consistent relations between given definitions or concepts. So that's what he
MEANS by using logic to prove things.

He MADE IT CLEAR that he WASN'T focused on using SCIENCE.
(The same way Boss, me, GT, PercySunshine and others were saying
either we can't really know or prove God's truth logic or reasons because
that is beyond us, or how I agreed with GT and PS that "God can neither be proven nor disproven")
MD and JD say this by saying "Science can only verify or falsify but cannot prove absolutely)

So that's THEIR way of saying the same thing.

2. where we disagree is wehre to focus
JD and MD 's job is to focus on the TAG definitions
and that's enough to deal with.

Where I wanted to bring in GT Hollie and maybe you since we seem to agree that if anyone is going to make claims, this should be demonstrated by normal science like anything else in the natural world that has a real life application.

Is to set up formal medical studies, using the same peer reviewed scientific methods and professional publication standards, on Spiritual Healing
as ONE area that science CAN demonstrate on the level that most people consider proof.

JD and MD aren't focused on that part.

So they keep defending their TAG/logic approach by definition of God
that is going to run into contradictions if you make statements that conflict with that.

I think Hollie GT and others DON'T relate to this approach
which seems to them a set up game of circular definitions and not really proving
anything outside that system they are already outside of.

They relate to the Science, and I think this is where you and I might agree.

GT agreed to consider looking into this Spiritual Healing
if there is really any sign that science can prove/demonstrate it.

M.D. did post a message that he believes in Spiritual Healing
and he Strongly reiterated this concern that science be the focus not religion
or nobody woudl believe the research studies; we agreed it would have to be done right.

But for him, he and JD are focused on bringing peopel together who understand
the TAG approach.

Boss and BreezeWood don't relate to the way MD is framing and presenting it,
but they both believe in an Almighty supreme level just not the way MD is framing it
which sounds contradictory when applied to the context they are coming from.

I can't find any other nontheists or atheists who respond to TAG
and I pointed this out, that it is mainly used for a screening device
to diagnose who takes which approach or rejects another,
and can be used as a test at the end to see if we are really converging to the same page
and can tolerate TAG the way I do, neither pushing it as the only way
nor rejecting it as if it is misleading because I know it can be used correctly.

Inevitable, I'd like your help to work with Hollie GT and others
amrchaos also, about using science to prove/demonstrate Spiritual Healing is
valid, consistent, natural, safe, effective and inclusive of people of all faiths or no faith.

it is based on forgiveness, which people can have or not have
independent of faith, so some Christians struggle with forgiveness and
addictions until they are fully healed, and it isn't about the label or denomination
but it's about the LEVEL or stage of healing and forgiveness you are
that determines how well you reconcile conflicts with yourself or with others.

the more people, conflicts and difference you forgive
the more healing, wisdom and insights you receive to solve problems
that otherwise cause these conflicts and unforgiveness.

As Christians we know this, but practicing it and achieving
the Kingdom of God in real life is a whole other process,
and that's why we're here.

I think the TAG helps separate and identify people in groups,
and then we need people like you who can work with the different groups
and find out how to address and resolve things effectively.

I think the spiritual healing will help with
a. bridging this mental divide that science and religion have to reject each other
which isn't true and is preventing greater progress
b. forgiveness and healing the people involved in the process
from past grievances causing us to project our angst or blame onto others
as "symbols" of the groups or religious/anti-religious we associate with these conflicts
c. demonstrating that it's okay to use science to
explain spiritual things, and doesn't have to be done by religious preaching
ro TAG or anything people can't understand or relate to

so there are multiple benefits of ADDING a focus on
science and spiritual healing to go along with the teamwork
MD and JD can set up around this TAG approach which is just one part.

The three parts I would focus on
1. TAG and definitions of God and who works with which approach or team
(and who cannot stand or cannot communicate at all and require an interpreter to mediate)

2. Science and spiritual healing to prove/demonstrate
the patterns of healing and the factors/degrees of forgiveness or unforgiveness
in either resolving conflicts or failure to do so

3. applying spiritual healing to real world issues
that prevent or block people's faith that people of
various religions or scientific or political views can reconcile their conflicts
and actually achieve world peace if that's what we're saying is the
same thing as the Kingdom of God, and the coming of Jesus means
establishing equal justice and lasting peace for all people worldwide.
so physical applications to show that this spiritual healing/forgiveness
does transform our real world relations, nations and real life situations.
that is what some people need in order to see proof of God and the Bible,
so fine, let's put that on the list.

Where we are now, is people are still fighting over TAG #1
when we could be focused on #2 which would end the need to argue over #1.

People don't get this because they have taken exception, offense or insult
with each other and are hashing out grievances. When that dies down
maybe we can organize in teams for these three levels of proving we
can form a Consensus on God, Jesus, the Bible Christianity etc.
by aligning like terms, by teaching and receiving/sharing spiritual
healing and forgiveness to transform the way we look at the world
and relate to each other as equals not enemies, and then apply to real world
ills to solve real world problems as a team.

thanks inevitable

I think you are a valuable team member and future leader
that could see this longterm process through to its fulfillment
even after MD and I pass away, or die from getting clobbered first
or impaling ourselves on our own swords, the typical Hamlet dramatics.

It is always the Prince Paris and the players in the background who
carry on and bring peace to the land, when all the big heads fall victim
to their pride and ego. You seem balanced to me, so I trust you will
use your gifts wisely and do a better job than MD JD and me who
you can learn from, mostly by our mistakes and what it takes to straighten us out!

Do you approve or disapprove of MD & justin calling inevitable a "faggot" several times?

See, Emily, in my opinion you need to stop wasting your valuable time on trying to bring certain people together with certain others. I told you, for me personally already, that I'd never associate on a cordial level with vile human beings such as these over the internet. It's 2014 and they're calling a homosexual man a "faggot" just for asking them questions, in a completely cordial manner.

This is not the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak, with these two juvenile delinquents. It's just more-so reinforcing what I already told you and now you see even more evidence for it. Shit, they even denigrated YOU several times, so, you largely waste your time here and I'm just trying to help you out.

Also, to save more of your time, don't type some long winded response about forgiveness. I know all about forgiveness, it's just not something I choose to practice on this occasion. That's not up for change.

No I don't agree with MD calling people faggot (unless it's like how my bf and brothers call each other gay boy, fag face, and other names sorta like the way I know guys who call each other ******* and that's cool with them in that context)

If people AGREE to call each other names,
like I might call MD 'babycakes' if he just gets too worked up and needs to come back down to earth where everyone else is.

But no, if someone says "please don't call me that, or please don't use those terms"
I believe we need to respect that.

Hollie is also calling people JW or many are still saying MD=JD
so we need to agree who is who, what is what, what we
agree to be called and what we don't. And stick to that
if we are going to communicate like civil adults.

GT just because I forgive a lot does not mean I condone it.
I'm trying to uncover the root of all this, so we can fix it at the core.
and then it won't keep coming out as name calls insults or weird accusations.

Well, in their defense, once they became pompous dicks - - - - - I started responding in kind that way.

But anyhoo, this line slayed me for some reason: "(unless it's like how my bf and brothers call each other gay boy, fag face, and other names"

It gave me a good belly laugh I'm not sure why, It's because I picture you as some 75yr old lady and those words coming from one of your typings just seemed like comedy to me, lol.

It's even funnier to hear/see them call each other those names.

I'm 48 but look like 28 and act about 8, on good days when I'm acting more grown up and not the usual 4 or 6 year old kindergartener I am by heart. I believe in sharing cookies and campfire songs and never really did understand why people had to be so mean.

My bf will tell you I act like a very smart 7 year old. Cannot pick my socks up off the floor, but I know how to prove a consensus on God, end global slavery and trafficking, and even fix the Democrat Party. yeah, right! why can't you clean up your room?

So I think I am a 40-year old 8-year old, if you can imagine that.
My bf is 47 and looks 35. He and his brothers still act middle school,
except when they argue Constitutional issues because my bf agrees with
prochoice and decriminalization of drugs and prostitution which is liberal
to them; so they argue he is a liberal, and my other friends say he is too far
to the right withthe conservatives, etc. etc.

RE God
my bf believes there is some intelligence but doesn't think God connects or interferes/influences what people do by free will, so he is not into the Christian
connection thing, does not get that part. He is a secular gentile and so are h is brothers.
One is agnostic and calls himself atheist but my bf pointed out he is just questioning
and admits he doesn't know either way.
The other is a Constitutionalist married to a Jehovah's Witness
and their best friend is an Elder with the JW. So I wanted to use science to establish
a consensus on spiritual healing that otherwise divides JW from other Christians.
(these three brothers have one more older brother, too, but these two
are the main ones he plays baseball with, and that's how they joke with each other)

I have gone to JW fellowships and reconciled with many members to learn how to talk and not talk with them. I find them to be secular gentiles under natural laws who
have accepted Christ and the Bible but are still taking a secular approach
because they also do not fully embrace this Christian idea of connecting
directly to God through Christ where we the church body become where
Christ is manifested. They still separate this out and do not fully see Christ
as connecting us with God to the same degree that other Christians do.

So the JW are actually part of the secular gentile fold under natural laws
with the Buddhist, Constitutionalists, atheists, nontheist.

I am physically more connected to the language and culture of this
secular gentile branch, but spiritually I am just like the Christians
and even Conservatives on the far right who feel removed from
the secular left. It's like being bilingual to me, where the right side
is the second language to me, and my native language is the secular left.

But it's so funny that more people on the right think I am one of them
and can't understand how i can be a prochoice Democrat.
To me there is no disconnect, no contradiction if you are
following the Constitution, then all views work out if you protect them equally.

So I consider myself a Constitutionalist first, and then I can switch modes
and connect with different people using whatever language, religious or
political angle they take and try to align on common principles points and grounds.

 

[emilynghiem]

Boss conflates the universal laws of logic with the exclusive powers of divinity

No, that's what YOU continue to do, TROLL!

Boss is reduced to the accolades of the morons he once detested. How pathetic. How very sad.

The Stars draw back the shroud and peep,
Shake their bearded chins, cast their pearly eyes away and weep.​

Taps playing

Have we now moved to "chants and incantations"?

BreezeWood added a Lamentation:
God God why have you forsaken me!

And I could add a prayer for God's mercy and benevolence:
Bismillah Al-Rahman Al-Raheem
in the "Struggle" for Peace or spiritual battle for the human conscience
to overcome ill and achieve true peace which surpasses all human misunderstanding.

Or for whichever of us, if anyone here, is JW:
Jehovah Akbar!

MD has declared TAG Jihad on the world!
Surrender Infidels! And your little dog, too....

BreezeWood added a Lamentation:

mdr: The relativist thought they were going to run this thread. LOL! Wrong. Not this time.


relativist = liberal = / = mdr > mdr = conservative = absolutionist = the opressed / martyrdom = orthodox Christian



reality = View attachment 34152 = absolutionist = orthodox Christian


mdr offers nothing new in revision to prove God's existence than using modern language as a similarly oppressive tool as the RACK used during the Spanish inquisition.


Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani

no Emily, the answer will never be an absolutionsts (bible) declaration for religion without there being the accommodation for an everchanging, relativist universe.

RE: ^ BreezeWood ^

I'd say GOD is in charge
and put this interesting team together for a reason.

We certainly challenge each other in ways that
makes us grow spiritually, so that is God's way of sending us
what we need even if we think that's not it or not why.
God knows better. His ways end up prevailing and
all of us will come to terms with that in this process. Amen!

 

[G.T.]

I am interested in objective tangible facts, I just haven't seen any. I never heard from any atheists about that poster. What atheists are you talking about? When did they talk to me?

talk about personal attacks.

Dear Justin Davis and Inevitable:
Sorry to jump in and out of here.

Can I try to clarify some points, to start on the same page?

1. Inevitable: M.D. Rawlings did clarify before he went off on this focus on TAG,
that the point is to focus on the "universal logic" like math terms that just show
consistent relations between given definitions or concepts. So that's what he
MEANS by using logic to prove things.

He MADE IT CLEAR that he WASN'T focused on using SCIENCE.
(The same way Boss, me, GT, PercySunshine and others were saying
either we can't really know or prove God's truth logic or reasons because
that is beyond us, or how I agreed with GT and PS that "God can neither be proven nor disproven")
MD and JD say this by saying "Science can only verify or falsify but cannot prove absolutely)

So that's THEIR way of saying the same thing.

2. where we disagree is wehre to focus
JD and MD 's job is to focus on the TAG definitions
and that's enough to deal with.

Where I wanted to bring in GT Hollie and maybe you since we seem to agree that if anyone is going to make claims, this should be demonstrated by normal science like anything else in the natural world that has a real life application.

Is to set up formal medical studies, using the same peer reviewed scientific methods and professional publication standards, on Spiritual Healing
as ONE area that science CAN demonstrate on the level that most people consider proof.

JD and MD aren't focused on that part.

So they keep defending their TAG/logic approach by definition of God
that is going to run into contradictions if you make statements that conflict with that.

I think Hollie GT and others DON'T relate to this approach
which seems to them a set up game of circular definitions and not really proving
anything outside that system they are already outside of.

They relate to the Science, and I think this is where you and I might agree.

GT agreed to consider looking into this Spiritual Healing
if there is really any sign that science can prove/demonstrate it.

M.D. did post a message that he believes in Spiritual Healing
and he Strongly reiterated this concern that science be the focus not religion
or nobody woudl believe the research studies; we agreed it would have to be done right.

But for him, he and JD are focused on bringing peopel together who understand
the TAG approach.

Boss and BreezeWood don't relate to the way MD is framing and presenting it,
but they both believe in an Almighty supreme level just not the way MD is framing it
which sounds contradictory when applied to the context they are coming from.

I can't find any other nontheists or atheists who respond to TAG
and I pointed this out, that it is mainly used for a screening device
to diagnose who takes which approach or rejects another,
and can be used as a test at the end to see if we are really converging to the same page
and can tolerate TAG the way I do, neither pushing it as the only way
nor rejecting it as if it is misleading because I know it can be used correctly.

Inevitable, I'd like your help to work with Hollie GT and others
amrchaos also, about using science to prove/demonstrate Spiritual Healing is
valid, consistent, natural, safe, effective and inclusive of people of all faiths or no faith.

it is based on forgiveness, which people can have or not have
independent of faith, so some Christians struggle with forgiveness and
addictions until they are fully healed, and it isn't about the label or denomination
but it's about the LEVEL or stage of healing and forgiveness you are
that determines how well you reconcile conflicts with yourself or with others.

the more people, conflicts and difference you forgive
the more healing, wisdom and insights you receive to solve problems
that otherwise cause these conflicts and unforgiveness.

As Christians we know this, but practicing it and achieving
the Kingdom of God in real life is a whole other process,
and that's why we're here.

I think the TAG helps separate and identify people in groups,
and then we need people like you who can work with the different groups
and find out how to address and resolve things effectively.

I think the spiritual healing will help with
a. bridging this mental divide that science and religion have to reject each other
which isn't true and is preventing greater progress
b. forgiveness and healing the people involved in the process
from past grievances causing us to project our angst or blame onto others
as "symbols" of the groups or religious/anti-religious we associate with these conflicts
c. demonstrating that it's okay to use science to
explain spiritual things, and doesn't have to be done by religious preaching
ro TAG or anything people can't understand or relate to

so there are multiple benefits of ADDING a focus on
science and spiritual healing to go along with the teamwork
MD and JD can set up around this TAG approach which is just one part.

The three parts I would focus on
1. TAG and definitions of God and who works with which approach or team
(and who cannot stand or cannot communicate at all and require an interpreter to mediate)

2. Science and spiritual healing to prove/demonstrate
the patterns of healing and the factors/degrees of forgiveness or unforgiveness
in either resolving conflicts or failure to do so

3. applying spiritual healing to real world issues
that prevent or block people's faith that people of
various religions or scientific or political views can reconcile their conflicts
and actually achieve world peace if that's what we're saying is the
same thing as the Kingdom of God, and the coming of Jesus means
establishing equal justice and lasting peace for all people worldwide.
so physical applications to show that this spiritual healing/forgiveness
does transform our real world relations, nations and real life situations.
that is what some people need in order to see proof of God and the Bible,
so fine, let's put that on the list.

Where we are now, is people are still fighting over TAG #1
when we could be focused on #2 which would end the need to argue over #1.

People don't get this because they have taken exception, offense or insult
with each other and are hashing out grievances. When that dies down
maybe we can organize in teams for these three levels of proving we
can form a Consensus on God, Jesus, the Bible Christianity etc.
by aligning like terms, by teaching and receiving/sharing spiritual
healing and forgiveness to transform the way we look at the world
and relate to each other as equals not enemies, and then apply to real world
ills to solve real world problems as a team.

thanks inevitable

I think you are a valuable team member and future leader
that could see this longterm process through to its fulfillment
even after MD and I pass away, or die from getting clobbered first
or impaling ourselves on our own swords, the typical Hamlet dramatics.

It is always the Prince Paris and the players in the background who
carry on and bring peace to the land, when all the big heads fall victim
to their pride and ego. You seem balanced to me, so I trust you will
use your gifts wisely and do a better job than MD JD and me who
you can learn from, mostly by our mistakes and what it takes to straighten us out!

Do you approve or disapprove of MD & justin calling inevitable a "faggot" several times?

See, Emily, in my opinion you need to stop wasting your valuable time on trying to bring certain people together with certain others. I told you, for me personally already, that I'd never associate on a cordial level with vile human beings such as these over the internet. It's 2014 and they're calling a homosexual man a "faggot" just for asking them questions, in a completely cordial manner.

This is not the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak, with these two juvenile delinquents. It's just more-so reinforcing what I already told you and now you see even more evidence for it. Shit, they even denigrated YOU several times, so, you largely waste your time here and I'm just trying to help you out.

Also, to save more of your time, don't type some long winded response about forgiveness. I know all about forgiveness, it's just not something I choose to practice on this occasion. That's not up for change.

No I don't agree with MD calling people faggot (unless it's like how my bf and brothers call each other gay boy, fag face, and other names sorta like the way I know guys who call each other ******* and that's cool with them in that context)

If people AGREE to call each other names,
like I might call MD 'babycakes' if he just gets too worked up and needs to come back down to earth where everyone else is.

But no, if someone says "please don't call me that, or please don't use those terms"
I believe we need to respect that.

Hollie is also calling people JW or many are still saying MD=JD
so we need to agree who is who, what is what, what we
agree to be called and what we don't. And stick to that
if we are going to communicate like civil adults.

GT just because I forgive a lot does not mean I condone it.
I'm trying to uncover the root of all this, so we can fix it at the core.
and then it won't keep coming out as name calls insults or weird accusations.

Well, in their defense, once they became pompous dicks - - - - - I started responding in kind that way.

But anyhoo, this line slayed me for some reason: "(unless it's like how my bf and brothers call each other gay boy, fag face, and other names"

It gave me a good belly laugh I'm not sure why, It's because I picture you as some 75yr old lady and those words coming from one of your typings just seemed like comedy to me, lol.

It's even funnier to hear/see them call each other those names.

I'm 48 but look like 28 and act about 8, on good days when I'm acting more grown up and not the usual 4 or 6 year old kindergartener I am by heart. I believe in sharing cookies and campfire songs and never really did understand why people had to be so mean.

My bf will tell you I act like a very smart 7 year old. Cannot pick my socks up off the floor, but I know how to prove a consensus on God, end global slavery and trafficking, and even fix the Democrat Party. yeah, right! why can't you clean up your room?

So I think I am a 40-year old 8-year old, if you can imagine that.
My bf is 47 and looks 35. He and his brothers still act middle school,
except when they argue Constitutional issues because my bf agrees with
prochoice and decriminalization of drugs and prostitution which is liberal
to them; so they argue he is a liberal, and my other friends say he is too far
to the right withthe conservatives, etc. etc.

RE God
my bf believes there is some intelligence but doesn't think God connects or interferes/influences what people do by free will, so he is not into the Christian
connection thing, does not get that part. He is a secular gentile and so are h is brothers.
One is agnostic and calls himself atheist but my bf pointed out he is just questioning
and admits he doesn't know either way.
The other is a Constitutionalist married to a Jehovah's Witness
and their best friend is an Elder with the JW. So I wanted to have
a consensus on spiritual healing that divides JW from other Christians.
(these three brothers have one more older brother, too, but these two
are the main ones he plays baseball with, and that's how they joke with each other)

are 48 look 28 act like 8?

sounds good to me!!

im 33 and look like a greek god and act anywhere between 3 and 80.

!!! true story !!!

 

[G.T.]

listen with headphones, in a relaxed sitting or laying position.

 

[emilynghiem]

Gateaux means from the hood

so instead of being the GOTO person
it's about being the Gateaux person?

is that Ghetto speak?
or Gateaux speak?

Seriously
GT do you or amrchaos or Inevitable
have any suggestions what TERMS to use
for explaining the distinction
Boss means by man's logic as less than God's
vs.
Justin and MD trying to stick with God's logic
and represent that using Man's logic terms.

They are talking in circles using "logic" in 3-4 different contexts.
Can you wonder why they all think the other is skewing it.

Reminds me of a very tragic case in Dallas
where the authorities questioned if the mother (from India)
had killed her son found dead, and she nodded her head no
which they took to mean yes. So they filed in the police report
she had confessed to killing her son, because her Indian
gestures were mistaken and misread to mean the OPPOSITE.
She was a grieving mother who sacrificed her career to be
at home and tend to her seriously ill son, and when he died of
one of the seizures, she kept his body on ice until the Father
got home from out of town so the family could handle the burial rites
according to Indian cultural tradition. Instead both parents killed
themselves when they could not overturn the charges of murder
caused by miscommunication and cultural differences.

Here is not so serious, but Justin has basically given us all
the death penalty mentally, accusing us of being phony because we
can't seem to communicate what we mean and he can't connect
it to what he is trying to say either. So we sound fake to him that
we are just talking mumbo jumbo for the sake of arguing in circles
over nothing when it is all plain as day to him.

clearly we are not connecting so we sound completely
off base and going around in our own circles and not
any plane of reality that the other person is coming from.

whoever can see that we are all experiencing similar "blank outs"
will quit the business of namecalling accusing or insulting anyone for this.

the key is to align each of these systems by parallels
especially if our worlds do not intersect. they
may mirror each other and we need to align
the "equivalent" terms principles or relations
in each system. And the parallels drawn may not be the
same for the next person, but each may need to be
resolved distinctly.

Boss is describing the relation with "logic" in a different way
to divide up the "spectrum or context" differently
so this is not going to match with Justin or MD.
instead of fighting over whose system is going to
dominate or replace theother, I'm saying to let
each person KEEP their own system and
translate where things lie under both systems
and line up the similar concepts that are close equivalents.

G.T. if you can work with Boss to hunt around
for better terms or descriptions to specify what
Boss is talking about where Justin and MD agree
that is true in their system, I can try to work with
MD and Justin with the terms they use on their side.

by trial and error, hit or miss, something has to align
because we are all trying to desribe how human nature
relates to the higher or collective level of truth/knowledge/logic.

the content underneath is the same for all people
but our expressions for these abstract levels
can get very complex (the Buddhist have even more
different terms for the levels of awareness that
American English does not distinguish from each other).
In Eskimo language there are more words for SNOW
while we only have one. And Greeks had different
words for the different types of LOVE while English
requires modifiers. So what about God and logic,
how many different levels or aspect could we
quantify there?

First, when Boss says "God created logic" then I feel that we are far a field of conceiving this God.

When Boss talks of "God's logic" I can only assume that there is some abstract method that this God created for itself to follow in terms of this creation. I am not even sure if this God can change "God's logic" at will, but it seems like it can.


I guess a BAD analogy is like a programing languge(like C ++) on a computer versus the Operating system that makes programming possible. The programming language is Man logic. All logic(programming language) only works on the computer because the programmer(God) set up the operating system(God's logic) for that program to work on.

In such a situation, God can wipe out the old operating system and put in a totally different operating system, and then put mans logic(programming language) can be placed back on that computer but the way it interacts with the new OS maybe different than how it worked with the old OS.

In this case, God's logic is the framework for man's logic to work on.

You do realized that you just proved the double proofs of the TAG again, don't you? No, of course, you don't.

No, because human science only verifies and falsifies and doesn't prove anything absolutely.
this VERIFIES what you state and believe as CONSISTENT in this case, but doesn't prove it in ALL cases.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Justin Davis and Inevitable:
Sorry to jump in and out of here.

Can I try to clarify some points, to start on the same page?

1. Inevitable: M.D. Rawlings did clarify before he went off on this focus on TAG,
that the point is to focus on the "universal logic" like math terms that just show
consistent relations between given definitions or concepts. So that's what he
MEANS by using logic to prove things.

He MADE IT CLEAR that he WASN'T focused on using SCIENCE.
(The same way Boss, me, GT, PercySunshine and others were saying
either we can't really know or prove God's truth logic or reasons because
that is beyond us, or how I agreed with GT and PS that "God can neither be proven nor disproven")
MD and JD say this by saying "Science can only verify or falsify but cannot prove absolutely)

So that's THEIR way of saying the same thing.

2. where we disagree is wehre to focus
JD and MD 's job is to focus on the TAG definitions
and that's enough to deal with.

Where I wanted to bring in GT Hollie and maybe you since we seem to agree that if anyone is going to make claims, this should be demonstrated by normal science like anything else in the natural world that has a real life application.

Is to set up formal medical studies, using the same peer reviewed scientific methods and professional publication standards, on Spiritual Healing
as ONE area that science CAN demonstrate on the level that most people consider proof.

JD and MD aren't focused on that part.

So they keep defending their TAG/logic approach by definition of God
that is going to run into contradictions if you make statements that conflict with that.

I think Hollie GT and others DON'T relate to this approach
which seems to them a set up game of circular definitions and not really proving
anything outside that system they are already outside of.

They relate to the Science, and I think this is where you and I might agree.

GT agreed to consider looking into this Spiritual Healing
if there is really any sign that science can prove/demonstrate it.

M.D. did post a message that he believes in Spiritual Healing
and he Strongly reiterated this concern that science be the focus not religion
or nobody woudl believe the research studies; we agreed it would have to be done right.

But for him, he and JD are focused on bringing peopel together who understand
the TAG approach.

Boss and BreezeWood don't relate to the way MD is framing and presenting it,
but they both believe in an Almighty supreme level just not the way MD is framing it
which sounds contradictory when applied to the context they are coming from.

I can't find any other nontheists or atheists who respond to TAG
and I pointed this out, that it is mainly used for a screening device
to diagnose who takes which approach or rejects another,
and can be used as a test at the end to see if we are really converging to the same page
and can tolerate TAG the way I do, neither pushing it as the only way
nor rejecting it as if it is misleading because I know it can be used correctly.

Inevitable, I'd like your help to work with Hollie GT and others
amrchaos also, about using science to prove/demonstrate Spiritual Healing is
valid, consistent, natural, safe, effective and inclusive of people of all faiths or no faith.

it is based on forgiveness, which people can have or not have
independent of faith, so some Christians struggle with forgiveness and
addictions until they are fully healed, and it isn't about the label or denomination
but it's about the LEVEL or stage of healing and forgiveness you are
that determines how well you reconcile conflicts with yourself or with others.

the more people, conflicts and difference you forgive
the more healing, wisdom and insights you receive to solve problems
that otherwise cause these conflicts and unforgiveness.

As Christians we know this, but practicing it and achieving
the Kingdom of God in real life is a whole other process,
and that's why we're here.

I think the TAG helps separate and identify people in groups,
and then we need people like you who can work with the different groups
and find out how to address and resolve things effectively.

I think the spiritual healing will help with
a. bridging this mental divide that science and religion have to reject each other
which isn't true and is preventing greater progress
b. forgiveness and healing the people involved in the process
from past grievances causing us to project our angst or blame onto others
as "symbols" of the groups or religious/anti-religious we associate with these conflicts
c. demonstrating that it's okay to use science to
explain spiritual things, and doesn't have to be done by religious preaching
ro TAG or anything people can't understand or relate to

so there are multiple benefits of ADDING a focus on
science and spiritual healing to go along with the teamwork
MD and JD can set up around this TAG approach which is just one part.

The three parts I would focus on
1. TAG and definitions of God and who works with which approach or team
(and who cannot stand or cannot communicate at all and require an interpreter to mediate)

2. Science and spiritual healing to prove/demonstrate
the patterns of healing and the factors/degrees of forgiveness or unforgiveness
in either resolving conflicts or failure to do so

3. applying spiritual healing to real world issues
that prevent or block people's faith that people of
various religions or scientific or political views can reconcile their conflicts
and actually achieve world peace if that's what we're saying is the
same thing as the Kingdom of God, and the coming of Jesus means
establishing equal justice and lasting peace for all people worldwide.
so physical applications to show that this spiritual healing/forgiveness
does transform our real world relations, nations and real life situations.
that is what some people need in order to see proof of God and the Bible,
so fine, let's put that on the list.

Where we are now, is people are still fighting over TAG #1
when we could be focused on #2 which would end the need to argue over #1.

People don't get this because they have taken exception, offense or insult
with each other and are hashing out grievances. When that dies down
maybe we can organize in teams for these three levels of proving we
can form a Consensus on God, Jesus, the Bible Christianity etc.
by aligning like terms, by teaching and receiving/sharing spiritual
healing and forgiveness to transform the way we look at the world
and relate to each other as equals not enemies, and then apply to real world
ills to solve real world problems as a team.

thanks inevitable

I think you are a valuable team member and future leader
that could see this longterm process through to its fulfillment
even after MD and I pass away, or die from getting clobbered first
or impaling ourselves on our own swords, the typical Hamlet dramatics.

It is always the Prince Paris and the players in the background who
carry on and bring peace to the land, when all the big heads fall victim
to their pride and ego. You seem balanced to me, so I trust you will
use your gifts wisely and do a better job than MD JD and me who
you can learn from, mostly by our mistakes and what it takes to straighten us out!

Do you approve or disapprove of MD & justin calling inevitable a "faggot" several times?

See, Emily, in my opinion you need to stop wasting your valuable time on trying to bring certain people together with certain others. I told you, for me personally already, that I'd never associate on a cordial level with vile human beings such as these over the internet. It's 2014 and they're calling a homosexual man a "faggot" just for asking them questions, in a completely cordial manner.

This is not the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak, with these two juvenile delinquents. It's just more-so reinforcing what I already told you and now you see even more evidence for it. Shit, they even denigrated YOU several times, so, you largely waste your time here and I'm just trying to help you out.

Also, to save more of your time, don't type some long winded response about forgiveness. I know all about forgiveness, it's just not something I choose to practice on this occasion. That's not up for change.

No I don't agree with MD calling people faggot (unless it's like how my bf and brothers call each other gay boy, fag face, and other names sorta like the way I know guys who call each other ******* and that's cool with them in that context)

If people AGREE to call each other names,
like I might call MD 'babycakes' if he just gets too worked up and needs to come back down to earth where everyone else is.

But no, if someone says "please don't call me that, or please don't use those terms"
I believe we need to respect that.

Hollie is also calling people JW or many are still saying MD=JD
so we need to agree who is who, what is what, what we
agree to be called and what we don't. And stick to that
if we are going to communicate like civil adults.

GT just because I forgive a lot does not mean I condone it.
I'm trying to uncover the root of all this, so we can fix it at the core.
and then it won't keep coming out as name calls insults or weird accusations.

Well, in their defense, once they became pompous dicks - - - - - I started responding in kind that way.

But anyhoo, this line slayed me for some reason: "(unless it's like how my bf and brothers call each other gay boy, fag face, and other names"

It gave me a good belly laugh I'm not sure why, It's because I picture you as some 75yr old lady and those words coming from one of your typings just seemed like comedy to me, lol.

It's even funnier to hear/see them call each other those names.

I'm 48 but look like 28 and act about 8, on good days when I'm acting more grown up and not the usual 4 or 6 year old kindergartener I am by heart. I believe in sharing cookies and campfire songs and never really did understand why people had to be so mean.

My bf will tell you I act like a very smart 7 year old. Cannot pick my socks up off the floor, but I know how to prove a consensus on God, end global slavery and trafficking, and even fix the Democrat Party. yeah, right! why can't you clean up your room?

So I think I am a 40-year old 8-year old, if you can imagine that.
My bf is 47 and looks 35. He and his brothers still act middle school,
except when they argue Constitutional issues because my bf agrees with
prochoice and decriminalization of drugs and prostitution which is liberal
to them; so they argue he is a liberal, and my other friends say he is too far
to the right withthe conservatives, etc. etc.

RE God
my bf believes there is some intelligence but doesn't think God connects or interferes/influences what people do by free will, so he is not into the Christian
connection thing, does not get that part. He is a secular gentile and so are h is brothers.
One is agnostic and calls himself atheist but my bf pointed out he is just questioning
and admits he doesn't know either way.
The other is a Constitutionalist married to a Jehovah's Witness
and their best friend is an Elder with the JW. So I wanted to have
a consensus on spiritual healing that divides JW from other Christians.
(these three brothers have one more older brother, too, but these two
are the main ones he plays baseball with, and that's how they joke with each other)

are 48 look 28 act like 8?

sounds good to me!!

im 33 and look like a greek god and act anywhere between 3 and 80.

!!! true story !!!

I believe in using Hugh Hefner's math. He said 80 is the new 40.

So I worked out the math, if you take anyone's age, divide in half
that's how they act.

this explains why 25 year olds act middle school.
and why 40 year old act like college newbies.

 

[emilynghiem]

This has resulted in getting you nowhere, in fact, you have actually LOST ground in this debate.

The Cultish, Self-Deluded and Self-Brainwashed Boss ≠ Boss, but = a Tiny Little god (Boss) in the Gap, has Nothing Now but My Utter Contempt!

Bottom line: your position, while trying to simultaneously assert theism. is especially untenable, bizarre, crazy, stupid! There is a reason that in the history of theism virtually no one, except for cultish space cadets like you, hold to this nonsense! It undermines and contradicts theism, you idiot! Indeed, there's no way in hell that BreezeWood could sensibly agree with you. Your notion would most especially overthrow pantheism/panentheism!

And, in the meantime, Amrchaos just exposed the irrationality of your notion . . . though he himself doesn't grasp the full ramifications, i.e., that he just proved the cognitive facts of the TAG regarding God's existence and the necessity that God bestowed His logic on us; more at, we cannot rationally explain how the logic we have would not universally hold. There has to be an all-encompassing "operating system", Boss, whether it be nature or God.

Just because you cannot apprehend that the denial of that is incoherent, inherently contradictory, self-negating and, therefore, positively proves the opposite of what you irrationally claim to be true is your problem, not mine. The fact that you necessarily, indeed, that we all must necessarily, presuppose that the laws of thought universally hold at all levels of being whenever we assert anything at all just flies right over you head.

That's all. That's your problem, not mine.

Indeed, self-deluded one, even seallybobo, GT and others instinctively understand that. The reality of the matter is that everyone of us rejected your crazy subjective-objective dichotomy and your 2 + 2 = 4 analogy earlier on this thread.

We all know that's true. You know that's true. And Emily does not agree with you either, self-deluded one, on this point.

I can go back and quote the posts in which seallybobo, GT, Justin, I and others, including even Hollie, amazingly enough, one of the few things she's gotten right, in which we all refuted you . . . so stop pretending that your bull is flying around here. GT also knows this to be true on the basis of our joint refutation of QW's computer analogy which is essentially the very same bullshit.

Everybody on this board knows that your split, incoherent paradigm for cognitive reality has been devastatingly refuted by me, whether one believes God exists or not.

Dear M.D.
Will you please REFRAIN from calling
Boss any names or adjectives that you would not accept being called yourself.
and REFRAIN from referring to anything
regarding sexual orientation of persons
which is not the subject of this discussion.

If you want to prove TAG works then stick to it.

If you have to revert to strategies outside of TAG
such as calling people stupid, drama queen,
phony, liars, etc.

What does this say about TAG?

That it only works if you chase everyone else away
with petty namecalling?

Are you trying to prove/VERIFY that it works and stands on its own?
Or that the only people pushing it are assholes?

If you aren't proving it works,
you could be demonstrating the other, which is the opposite of your intent.

Can you please stick to the content of the proof
or ADMIT that one or more of the other focus points
may be equally necessary to resolve AROUND TAG as one of three focus points:

A. point one the focus on TAG and agreement/alignment
on definitions and meanings of God, and where the contradictions
are really coming from when people reject God or define God
to be something conflicting

B. point two
the focus on using pure natural science to demonstrate
the process of spiritual healing, both for its own sake,
and for bridging the gap between science and religion,
and for bringing healing/forgiveness into the environments
and relations AROUND the proof process (so that this
helps with point A)

C. point three
solving real world crises and conflicts by applying
the healing and forgiveness as shown to work effectively under B
to DEMONSTRATE in real life this brings about peace in REAL
relations and world wide situations that people can see and experience for themselves.
(like making peace between liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans,
between druglords/traffickers and immigration/labor reform, between Jews Christians and Muslims to end war and terrorism, between rape victims and rapists, blacks and whites, haves and have nots, theists and nontheists, church and state, left and right, prochoice and prolife etc etc) And show the "Kingdom of God" as world peace IS real, and CAN be achieved by establishing truth and justice through forgiveness, correction and healing in keeping with the meaning and message in Christianity and the Bible as universal to all people.

^ note ^ point C is where I believe the namecalling is coming from
MD, JD and other do not have 'faith' you can resolve things
without beaning or bullying each other into submission.

So that is caused by conflicts we have seen under C
And if we saw more such conflicts resolved in Christ
by forgiveness and correction, healing and reconcilation in truth,
then we wouldn't waste words namecalling

We'd be more like GT and Inevitable who have found
ways to laugh, look past and rise above.

M.D. Rawlings
and Justin Davis

how telling it is that people you criticize like G.T. and Inevitable
show more forgiveness of you than you do of them.

Who are the Christians here?
Who is the Good Samaritan in this case?

Ironic to me, who is acting as "neighbors in Christ"
and who is spitting in the face of other people.

You will know them by their spirit.
Judge not, but judge righteous judgment.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Boss conflates the universal laws of logic with the exclusive powers of divinity

No, that's what YOU continue to do, TROLL!

Boss is reduced to the accolades of the morons he once detested. How pathetic. How very sad.

The Stars draw back the shroud and peep,
Shake their bearded chins, cast their pearly eyes away and weep.​

Taps playing

Have we now moved to "chants and incantations"?

BreezeWood added a Lamentation:
God God why have you forsaken me!

And I could add a prayer for God's mercy and benevolence:
Bismillah Al-Rahman Al-Raheem
in the "Struggle" for Peace or spiritual battle for the human conscience
to overcome ill and achieve true peace which surpasses all human misunderstanding.

Or for whichever of us, if anyone here, is JW:
Jehovah Akbar!

MD has declared TAG Jihad on the world!
Surrender Infidels! And your little dog, too....

Stop, Emily! People are taking a simple, incontrovertible, LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC FACT of human cognition/psychology and making it into something complex or mystical.

The bottom line: the jihadists are the ones stupidly arguing against the existence of the LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC FACT of the God axiom and the LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC nature of the God axiom!

See the following post on another thread populated by more sensible persons, i.e., a thread on which there are fewer thoughtlessly closed-minded, dogmatic, fanatical jihadists of self-inflicted mental retardation: The hypocrisy and arrogance of atheism Page 63 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The issue is not whether or not this LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC FACT of human cognition/psychology is a FACT. It is a LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC FACT of human cognition/psychology. Go debate the FACT of this LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC FACT of human cognition/psychology with the wall or with the fuzz in your navel. Only imbeciles debate over the reality of this LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC FACT of human cognition/psychology. Only imbeciles fail to apprehend this LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC FACT of human cognition/psychology, and only liars pretend that this LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC FACT of human cognition/psychology is an informal logical fallacy or does not exist.



1. Do you believe that this LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC FACT of human cognition/psychology ultimately/transcendentally holds true outside our minds, beyond the axiomatic imperatives of human thought, or not?

Yes or no?

2. Is this LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC FACT of human cognition/psychology a mere fluke of nature or the voice of God imprinted on our brains/minds?

Nature or God or both?



That is the only thing about this LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC FACT of human cognition/psychology that is arguably controversial or open to debate.

The FACT of the existence of this LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC FACT of human cognition/psychology, or the FACT of the nature of this LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC FACT of human cognition/psychology is not controversial or open to debate!

And I'm done with the idiots who cannot or will not make this simple distinction, that which a child would understand.

It is I who has tolerantly, patiently, sometimes satirically, sometimes coaxingly and sometimes tactically combatively, put up with inexcusable stupidity and obtuseness, intellectual intolerance and dishonesty.

Inevitable the Betty Boop Imbecile of Imbeciles, the Dingbat of Theistic Belief of Just Because . . . But Not Really was the last straw; more at, the fact that so many of you aligned yourselves with the Pollyannaish banalities of Inevitable the Betty Boop Imbecile of Imbeciles, the Dingbat of Theistic Belief of Just Because . . . But Not Really was the last straw.

Who but uneducable imbeciles would give this snot-nosed punk, this utter fool, anything more than contempt or the back of his hand?

What kind of person but a drooling imbecile holds that God exists but that this LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC FACT of human cognition/psychology does not exist or is merely a fluke of nature? That's assuming, of course, that Inevitable the Betty Boop Imbecile of Imbeciles, the Dingbat of Theistic Belief of Just Because . . . But Not Really ever even grasped the reality of this LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC FACT of human cognition/psychology, let alone the subsequently pertinent questions thereof.