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

[M.D. Rawlings]

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

Nope....God is beyond our limited and finite minds.

"For just as the heavens are higher than the earth, so my ways are higher than your ways and my thoughts higher than your thoughts."

Thanks for sharing, but your notion has been roundly falsified on this thread, and, in any event, your claim and your apparent and quite mishandled interpretation of that passage is contradicted by the facts of this one, Romans 1: 18 - 20:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.


The evidence for God's existence is everywhere, and the proofs for God's existence are cognitively manifest.​

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Oddly, none of your rant does anything to support your polytheistic gawds.

Yours is the standard tactic of the Harun Yahya groupies. You hope to vilify science in the hope of shifting the burden of proof from your claims to gawds.

Not odd at all, you're still full of that stuff, Basket Weaver II, alongside the original Basket Weaver orogenicman and Basket Weaver GT.

Wow, that's about as odd is it gets.

. . . he mumbled in the wake of his well-deserved, just beggin'-for-it, humiliation.

 

[orogenicman]

Oddly, none of your rant does anything to support your polytheistic gawds.

Yours is the standard tactic of the Harun Yahya groupies. You hope to vilify science in the hope of shifting the burden of proof from your claims to gawds.

Not odd at all, you're still full of that stuff, Basket Weaver II, alongside the original Basket Weaver orogenicman and Basket Weaver GT.

Wow, that's about as odd is it gets.

. . . he mumbled in the wake of his well-deserved, just beggin'-for-it, humiliation.

That's it? That's all you've got?

Here is someone who has something to say about idiots like you who have no respect for science or scientists:

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Okay. Let's see what this idiot has to say. . . .


Okay.


The notion of catastrophic global warming is sheer hysteria for statists control freaks, hysterics, naive comedians and other dingbats. It's a crock. The Earth's overall temperature has been falling again in the last several years, and ice holdings are rising again. The Earth has been undergoing cyclical periods of cooling and heating for billions of years, and there's not a damn thing we can do to change that.

The 97% Myth of the Sheeple People:
http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136


Now back to your regularly scheduled programing. . . .

 

[Hollie]

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

Nope....God is beyond our limited and finite minds.

"For just as the heavens are higher than the earth, so my ways are higher than your ways and my thoughts higher than your thoughts."

Thanks for sharing, but your notion has been roundly falsified on this thread, and, in any event, your claim and your apparent and quite mishandled interpretation of that passage is contradicted by the facts of this one, Romans 1: 18 - 20:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.


The evidence for God's existence is everywhere, and the proofs for God's existence are cognitively manifest.​

Umm, sorry, Stumble Bum.

There is no evidence for the existence of any gawds, not any of your three gawds, not Zeus, not any of the gawds.

You can thump your bibles all you want. You can screech and rattle on, but none of the gawds are cognitively manifest.

 

[BreezeWood]

Here is something for the "no such thing as God" people to ponder....

I want you to think about sharks and lions for a minute. A shark is basically an eating machine. It spends most of it's existence searching out and consuming prey, only to grow larger and need more prey. Lions are basically land-based versions of the shark. Both creatures have amazing abilities and are incredibly smart but they can't contemplate, rationalize, invent and create like humans. Can you imagine the nightmare if sharks and lions had the capacity of humans to reason and imagine?

Now we look at humans. We have the ability to reason, to contemplate, to invent and create. Nothing else does it better than us. Left to our own devices, we have the potential to outsmart anything on the planet, including the sharks and lions. This amazing ability and power of humans is great because it has allowed us to advance to levels that no other creature can even comprehend. We've invented math and science, we can figure things out, including how to literally destroy every living thing in creation. What prevents this from happening? What constrains the inherent powers of human beings? What stops us from being "too smart for our own good?"

It is our built-in and hard-wired comprehension of something greater than self. The realization of this power is the basis for our development of "human morality" and this alone prevents us from destroying ourselves and everything else. You can intellectually argue about various incarnations of God all day long, but what you cannot argue is the necessity of something which keeps humanity in check and doesn't allow our intelligence and cognizance to go too far. Without this, we couldn't or wouldn't survive and nothing else would either. Our world would have long ago collapsed into chaos and we would have destroyed it all without something to reel us back in.

Whether or not a particular "God" does or doesn't exist is certainly something we can debate, but nature itself could not be balanced as it is with humans having the abilities they have, and nothing to constrain them. It simply doesn't work without human realization of something greater than self.

... we have the potential to outsmart anything on the planet,

seriously boss, all living beings have independent Spirits irregardless an evolved specific distinction, a chosen distinction that each is destined for Judgement.

do you deny, all are entitled to accomplish Admission to the Everlasting ? -

why without the constraints of a self serving written document would you chose that same path of vial righteousness that is the demonstrative error for those religions by aligning yourself with the similarly narrow minded as mdr in nothing more than selfglorification - idolatry, against the creation of the Almighty.

a fatal decision for those who chose it.

.

Seriously Breeze, I have no argument with your viewpoint on universal spirituality. I've tried to make that clear to you several times. What I am trying to do here is draw a distinct correlation between human spirituality and nature, or more precisely, the laws of nature. I asked that you imagine a shark or lion with the capabilities and capacity of human beings and what sort of tumultuous chaos that would cause... I'll ask now, imagine if humans, with our capabilities and capacity, behaved strictly according to nature the way lions and sharks do. Same thing, chaos.

We have a unique set of attributes that no other living things have, and those attributes give us tremendous power over our domain in the animal kingdom. Without "something" to render a check on our abilities, nature could not handle it, we would have destroyed everything living on the planet, then destroyed ourselves. It is the presence of that "something" which prevents this from happening and provides a balance in nature.

That is not to say that this "something" isn't also realized by other living things, it may very well be. But it is especially important to humans to recognize it as part of our cognizance in order to humble us and allow us to remain in relative harmony with nature. Perhaps other things don't show indication of this through worship and religion because they don't need to?

Again... not contradicting your viewpoint at all, I think it's quite fascinating to be honest, and perhaps you are 100% correct. That doesn't really have anything to do with what I am presenting here.

.

I asked that you imagine a shark or lion with the capabilities and capacity of human beings and what sort of tumultuous chaos that would cause... I'll ask now, imagine if humans, with our capabilities and capacity, behaved strictly according to nature the way lions and sharks do. Same thing, chaos.

that really makes no sense, what you predict was fact 200 million years ago T-Rex was the the supreme being on Earth, there wasn't chaos - for that period it was no different than the rule of humanity.

We have a unique set of attributes that no other living things have, and those attributes give us tremendous power over our domain in the animal kingdom.

you presuppose the "tremendous power over our domain in the animal kingdom" is warranted and not the outcome of disingenuous rationalizations humanity has chosen that other living beings have avoided for a reason such as a final condemnation and permanent extinction.

Again... not contradicting your viewpoint at all, I think it's quite fascinating to be honest, and perhaps you are 100% correct. That doesn't really have anything to do with what I am presenting here.

well, it has everything to do with your perspective when all living beings are not accorded their rightful Spiritual existence at the expense of a glorification for a humanity that with a single A-Bomb has evolved to threaten all life on what was a Pristine Planet as the example of your proximity to its Creator -

think again bossy.

.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

It is totally arrogant to think to you know for a fact that a god exists or doesn't exist. That's why agnostic is the only rational stance to have, as the matter has not been settled one way or the other.

The Incontrovertible, Scientific Facts of Human Cognition/Psychology Versus the Make Believe World of Materialistic, Cross-My-Fingers Nuh-huh

Nonsense. The objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin are universally self-evident due to the bioneurologically hardwired imperatives of organic logic: (1) the law of identity, (2) the law of contradiction and (3) the law of the excluded middle. I do not even need to assert my subjective belief that the laws of human thought persist in my immaterial soul and are ultimately grounded in God. We know they persist neurologically and psychologically. Science!

And the fact that God's existence cannot be logically ruled out and that it's impossible for a finite mind to think/say that God the Creator does not exist without saying/thinking, on the very face of it, that nothing could exist: the notion that God does not exist is, according to the laws of human thought, inherently contradictory, self-negating and, thus, positively proves, logically, that the opposite must be true. God must exist!

So don't give me this garbage about arrogance.

The question is: do you believe this a priori axiom of human cognition, which is no different in nature than 2 + 2 = 4, holds true ultimately/transcendentally outside the confines of our minds, beyond the imperatives of human thought . . . or not?

Is this fact of human psychology merely a fluke of nature or is it the voice of God imprinted on our brains and, perhaps, objectively speaking, our souls?

I consistently hold that all axioms must be true, as reason tells me that any attempt to negate them logically affirms them, and experience has shown me over and over again without fail that all the other a priori axioms of human cognition do hold true in the empirical realm of being.

Hence, I justifiably hold that the God axiom must be ultimately/transcendentally true. Do not tell me that I do so without good reason or out of sheer arrogance.

That is the utter bullshit of bullshitters!

I believe!

You don't!

I'm standing on something solid!

You aren't!

You're standing on the utterly unsupported belief of metaphysical materialism. Objectively speaking, you might be right, but don't tell me your belief is backed by logical consistency or by anything scientific, for it manifestly is not.

It's as simple as that, and it is due to these facts of human cognition that in history humanity has always overwhelming, consciously or instinctively, held that God must be, and there has never been and never will be any rational argument or scientific theory that would make these facts of human psychology go away.

The only arrogance around here is the arrogance of the atheist/agnostic contradictorily pretending not to understand these facts of human cognition and contradictorily pretending that he knows something more about ultimate reality than I, something that refutes these incontrovertible facts of human cognition, something only divinity could know better than the only logical facts we have to go on.

Are you guys contradictorily presupposing the existence of divinity (in truth, playing at the little gods in the gap fallacy) in order to assert the supposed superiority of your position?

Answer: Yes, you are!

You have always necessarily and, until now, as I have stripped you of your pretensions, unwittingly conceded the paradoxical nature of your position in the face of the undeniable facts of organic logic.

 

[mamooth]

Can you imagine the nightmare if sharks and lions had the capacity of humans to reason and imagine?

As it would be an evolutionary disadvantage for a shark to waste brainpower thinking about anything but swimming/eating/mating, the philosophical shark would go extinct rather quickly.

What stops us from being "too smart for our own good? It is our built-in and hard-wired comprehension of something greater than self.

"Family", "tribe", "society", "nation" or "race" are all examples of something greater than self.

No gods required.

 

[Boss]

Here is something for the "no such thing as God" people to ponder....

I want you to think about sharks and lions for a minute. A shark is basically an eating machine. It spends most of it's existence searching out and consuming prey, only to grow larger and need more prey. Lions are basically land-based versions of the shark. Both creatures have amazing abilities and are incredibly smart but they can't contemplate, rationalize, invent and create like humans. Can you imagine the nightmare if sharks and lions had the capacity of humans to reason and imagine?

Now we look at humans. We have the ability to reason, to contemplate, to invent and create. Nothing else does it better than us. Left to our own devices, we have the potential to outsmart anything on the planet, including the sharks and lions. This amazing ability and power of humans is great because it has allowed us to advance to levels that no other creature can even comprehend. We've invented math and science, we can figure things out, including how to literally destroy every living thing in creation. What prevents this from happening? What constrains the inherent powers of human beings? What stops us from being "too smart for our own good?"

It is our built-in and hard-wired comprehension of something greater than self. The realization of this power is the basis for our development of "human morality" and this alone prevents us from destroying ourselves and everything else. You can intellectually argue about various incarnations of God all day long, but what you cannot argue is the necessity of something which keeps humanity in check and doesn't allow our intelligence and cognizance to go too far. Without this, we couldn't or wouldn't survive and nothing else would either. Our world would have long ago collapsed into chaos and we would have destroyed it all without something to reel us back in.

Whether or not a particular "God" does or doesn't exist is certainly something we can debate, but nature itself could not be balanced as it is with humans having the abilities they have, and nothing to constrain them. It simply doesn't work without human realization of something greater than self.

... we have the potential to outsmart anything on the planet,

seriously boss, all living beings have independent Spirits irregardless an evolved specific distinction, a chosen distinction that each is destined for Judgement.

do you deny, all are entitled to accomplish Admission to the Everlasting ? -

why without the constraints of a self serving written document would you chose that same path of vial righteousness that is the demonstrative error for those religions by aligning yourself with the similarly narrow minded as mdr in nothing more than selfglorification - idolatry, against the creation of the Almighty.

a fatal decision for those who chose it.

.

Seriously Breeze, I have no argument with your viewpoint on universal spirituality. I've tried to make that clear to you several times. What I am trying to do here is draw a distinct correlation between human spirituality and nature, or more precisely, the laws of nature. I asked that you imagine a shark or lion with the capabilities and capacity of human beings and what sort of tumultuous chaos that would cause... I'll ask now, imagine if humans, with our capabilities and capacity, behaved strictly according to nature the way lions and sharks do. Same thing, chaos.

We have a unique set of attributes that no other living things have, and those attributes give us tremendous power over our domain in the animal kingdom. Without "something" to render a check on our abilities, nature could not handle it, we would have destroyed everything living on the planet, then destroyed ourselves. It is the presence of that "something" which prevents this from happening and provides a balance in nature.

That is not to say that this "something" isn't also realized by other living things, it may very well be. But it is especially important to humans to recognize it as part of our cognizance in order to humble us and allow us to remain in relative harmony with nature. Perhaps other things don't show indication of this through worship and religion because they don't need to?

Again... not contradicting your viewpoint at all, I think it's quite fascinating to be honest, and perhaps you are 100% correct. That doesn't really have anything to do with what I am presenting here.

.

I asked that you imagine a shark or lion with the capabilities and capacity of human beings and what sort of tumultuous chaos that would cause... I'll ask now, imagine if humans, with our capabilities and capacity, behaved strictly according to nature the way lions and sharks do. Same thing, chaos.

that really makes no sense, what you predict was fact 200 million years ago T-Rex was the the supreme being on Earth, there wasn't chaos - for that period it was no different than the rule of humanity.

Why don't you try reading the whole post in it's entirety before popping out a knee-jerk response to one paragraph? It might make sense that way.

Was T-Rex capable of building fucking rockets to take dinosaurs to the moon? Figure out how to cure diseases? Create maths and sciences? Okay then, so they WERE NOT of the same or similar capability and capacity as human beings, because human beings CAN do those sort of things.

So what we see here is, you've totally missed my point because you are too busy looking for some reason to find disagreement with me. Look... I get it, that's really all this place is for some people, a place to come argue for the sake of arguing. But you really do need to find something worth arguing, because you're looking like a goofy bitch.

We have a unique set of attributes that no other living things have, and those attributes give us tremendous power over our domain in the animal kingdom.

you presuppose the "tremendous power over our domain in the animal kingdom" is warranted and not the outcome of disingenuous rationalizations humanity has chosen that other living beings have avoided for a reason such as a final condemnation and permanent extinction.

HUH? I've not "presupposed" that humans are far more advanced and able to create, rationalize and reason, invent and be inspired, than any other living thing on the planet. That's just a fact of life. Whether it's "warranted" makes no difference, it's how things are, it's how humans are built. Are you trying to say that the "flora and fauna" could do the things humans do, but they consciously choose not to? If so, you're nuttier than a fruitcake.

Again... not contradicting your viewpoint at all, I think it's quite fascinating to be honest, and perhaps you are 100% correct. That doesn't really have anything to do with what I am presenting here.

well, it has everything to do with your perspective when all living beings are not accorded their rightful Spiritual existence at the expense of a glorification for a humanity that with a single A-Bomb has evolved to threaten all life on what was a Pristine Planet as the example of your proximity to its Creator -

think again bossy..

Ya... I'm thinking I need to rethink agreeing with your viewpoint. You're becoming more of a kook than MD now.

 

[Boss]

Can you imagine the nightmare if sharks and lions had the capacity of humans to reason and imagine?

As it would be an evolutionary disadvantage for a shark to waste brainpower thinking about anything but swimming/eating/mating, the philosophical shark would go extinct rather quickly.

What stops us from being "too smart for our own good? It is our built-in and hard-wired comprehension of something greater than self.

"Family", "tribe", "society", "nation" or "race" are all examples of something greater than self.

No gods required.

the philosophical shark would go extinct rather quickly...

Would he now? Or would he use that power to better his abilities like humans have?

"Family", "tribe", "society", "nation" or "race" are all examples of something greater than self.

Not really. You're simply drawing a distinction to larger groups and proclaiming they are greater. In order for any such distinction to be made, there first has to be something which prompts the notion of a "greater good" to be achieved through such recognition. Otherwise, the laws of nature would prevail. Lions and sharks pay no attention to family, tribe, society, nation or race... they stalk their prey and kill it. The alpha male dominates the pack. They don't lose any sleep over what they do.

What you are doing is taking the result of human spirituality and using that as the reasoning for why humans don't require spirituality, and it simply doesn't work. It's as if you have discovered the very first book, and you have decided that this book is where humans created language. Now you can make a case for that, you can certainly believe and argue that, but it's a wrongheaded viewpoint that doesn't withstand the logic test. The language had to first exist before the book, there is no other logical explanation.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

That's it? That's all you've got?

But in all seriousness, orogenicman, catastrophic global warming is for scoundrels and the sheep they shear. You don't know that?

I'm putting that in my signature.

 

[orogenicman]

That's it? That's all you've got?

But in all seriousness, orogenicman, catastrophic global warming is for scoundrels and the sheep they shear. You don't know that?

I'm putting that in my signature.

If you want to make yourself look the fool, go for it. You have that right.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

If you want to make yourself look the fool, go for it. You have that right.

If I want to look like a fool?! Shut up, you idiot. Your ass is already hanging out like that of a fool's over abiogenesis, and we classical liberals know that only sheep buy the 97% myth and the statist baloney of alarmist global warming. Contempt is the operative word here. It is contempt with which gullible fools like yourself are regarded by the elitists who sell it, and it is contempt with which those of us who know what the scoundrels are all about regard you.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

"Family", "tribe", "society", "nation" or "race" are all examples of something greater than self.
No gods required.

The Noise of this World and the Flatulence of their Own Conceits

Ah! See. There's the good ol' collectivist, herd mentality so very typical of so many atheists. The atheist thinks of himself as the free thinker, the originalist, the above-it-all, high-flying rationalist. But, of course, he is none of these things. His thinking is pedestrian, even boorish, for it is irrational and unimaginative, a dead end, and so it keeps him earthbound, going around and around the mulberry tree. His ideology is an incoherent collection of slogans, his thoughts, banalities bouncing off the walls of a dark and tiny room. This is why most atheists are statists, conformists, dull, drab shades of gray.

In the meantime, Christians are the true realists, the rationalists, and so they are the staunch, rugged individualists in the world, but not of it, open to every new adventure, free of the fanatical, mumbo-jumbo superstitions of a fallen humanity, beholden to no one and to no thing as sterile and miserly as the commonplace things of this passing world. Instead, they hang on every precious word and thunderous truth of a risen Savior full of life and wonders.

The atheist shouts the mundane axiom "2 + 2 = 4!" as if he had struck gold . . . when the greatest axiom of them all, the voice of God Himself, imprinted on his mind, declares, "I AM!"

But all relativists are as deaf as posts, hearing nothing, believing in nothing but the noise of this world and the flatulence of their own conceits.

GT: Informal fallacy!
Emily: Can't we all just get along?
Betty Boop Inevitable: I believe in God . . . but not really.
Hollie: $%^&@#*+!
mamooth: $%^&@#*+!
Tom Sweetnam: $%^&@#*+!
Boss: We can believe truth, but never know truth, except I know things that no one else knows . . . but not really.
orogenicmanicus; Abiogenesis! Millions of kinds! Fairies wear boots. You gotta believe me! Global warming!
seallybobo: Huh?
Amrchaos: Solipsism! The objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of origin and existence are empirical in nature . . . but not really.
BreezeWood: Pantheistic mumbo jumbo.
QW: Science has primacy over consciousness!
Foxfyre: I know all about the classical proofs for God's existence, studied them for years . . . but not really. My tiny, pipsqueak of a god!
PratchettFan: No evidence! Informational vacuum!
asaratis: No evidence! No proof!
Brucethenonthinker: Mountains out of no hills at all!

"I AM!" says God Almighty.

Did you hear that?

Not me, I was too busy . . . outsmarting myself to hear anything worth knowing or believing.

But, of course, none of you can overthrow or escape the objective facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and orgin. You all run and hide and pretend. The Seven Things™ that are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle): http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10122836/.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse (Romans 1: 18 - 20).​

 

[Inevitable]

​

Now logically prove how the logic of our minds isn't true ultimately.

.
it can be when accomplished, something you might attempt someday.

* (Hint) it requires a practical application ....

.

Why bother, these folks don't really seem interested in conversing.

This from you! This was our conversation:

Inevitable: So what is the proof for God's existence?

Rawlings: Well, consider the following, and I'll address substantive questions.

Inevitable: No!

Rawlings: But try. Let's see what happens.

Inevitable: No! There's no proof!

Rawlings: Why do you say that?

Inevitable: No! I'm not telling you!

Rawlings: Why did you ask for the proof?

Inevitable: No! There's no proof! Fingers plugging ears La-la-la-la-la, I can't hear you. You're a poop-poop head. Stop preaching at me. Stop asking me questions. Stop making me think. Stop talking about the issue of the OP, I just want to bitch and gossip about you. That's all I want to do.

Rawlings: Then piss off, you self-righteous, moralizing little prick.​

End of discussion.

That is how it always goes with you dogmatically closed-minded relativists.

actually, peebrain, it went down like this:

inevitable: is there proof of god in this thread?
justin davis aka md: faggot has his ears plugged! read the thread!
md rawlings aka justin davis: listen faggot, i am the greatest logician of evaaaaaa! i dont ACTUALLY have to prove anything!
inevitable: whatever guys, you seem emotional, i just asked and you havent answered.
justin davis aka md plumber: fancy pants, go flame somewhere else faggot, you liar, you you you you.....fancy pants.
md rawlings aka justin plumber: calm down with the name calling justin, this faggot will get his due.


blah blah blah. you two/one are embarrassments to humanity.

that is about what it appeared to be from my point of view.

 

[Inevitable]

.
it can be when accomplished, something you might attempt someday.

* (Hint) it requires a practical application ....

.

Why bother, these folks don't really seem interested in conversing.

This from you! This was our conversation:

Inevitable: So what is the proof for God's existence?

Rawlings: Well, consider the following, and I'll address substantive questions.

Inevitable: No!

Rawlings: But try. Let's see what happens.

Inevitable: No! There's no proof!

Rawlings: Why do you say that?

Inevitable: No! I'm not telling you!

Rawlings: Why did you ask for the proof?

Inevitable: No! There's no proof! Fingers plugging ears La-la-la-la-la, I can't hear you. You're a poop-poop head. Stop preaching at me. Stop asking me questions. Stop making me think. Stop talking about the issue of the OP, I just want to bitch and gossip about you. That's all I want to do.

Rawlings: Then piss off, you self-righteous, moralizing little prick.​

End of discussion.

That is how it always goes with you dogmatically closed-minded relativists.

actually, peebrain, it went down like this:

inevitable: is there proof of god in this thread?
justin davis aka md: faggot has his ears plugged! read the thread!
md rawlings aka justin davis: listen faggot, i am the greatest logician of evaaaaaa! i dont ACTUALLY have to prove anything!
inevitable: whatever guys, you seem emotional, i just asked and you havent answered.
justin davis aka md plumber: fancy pants, go flame somewhere else faggot, you liar, you you you you.....fancy pants.
md rawlings aka justin plumber: calm down with the name calling justin, this faggot will get his due.


blah blah blah. you two/one are embarrassments to humanity.

Oh, I forgot. Of course, most relativists are also pathological liars. Inevitable asked no such thing. Looked at no such thing. Considered nothing. Thought about nothing. Understood nothing. Contributed nothing. Didn't even try. Bitch. Moan. Gossip. That's all he did.

You're right, you are a pathological liar.

can i not quote inevitable asking that very thing, right now, and make you look like a gigantic douchebag for saying he "asked no such thing?"

Sure I can. I should. Hell, I might. I'm going to give it some thought. Let you grovel, mix it up a little bit.


Oh wait, nevermind. I dont even need to. You admitted it yourself already. Wow you're a schlub.

md rawlings aka "blue moon":

"This from you! This was our conversation:

Inevitable: So what is the proof for God's existence?"​

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!

I appreciate what you ate trying to do, but I am done with these two knuckle heads. All they can do is call names and play martyr. That is not a discussion, they have made it clear there is no possibility for a discussion. So, we are threw.

 

[Inevitable]

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.

I have grown to respect Emily, I think she has an immense amount of patience. But there is a point when you let go. It might be a good thing that she doesn't.

I thank you, I now have come to respect you. And I am glad to see that somebody else has seen this outlandish behavior for what it was.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

​

Now logically prove how the logic of our minds isn't true ultimately.

.
it can be when accomplished, something you might attempt someday.

* (Hint) it requires a practical application ....

.

Why bother, these folks don't really seem interested in conversing.

This from you! This was our conversation:

Inevitable: So what is the proof for God's existence?

Rawlings: Well, consider the following, and I'll address substantive questions.

Inevitable: No!

Rawlings: But try. Let's see what happens.

Inevitable: No! There's no proof!

Rawlings: Why do you say that?

Inevitable: No! I'm not telling you!

Rawlings: Why did you ask for the proof?

Inevitable: No! There's no proof! Fingers plugging ears La-la-la-la-la, I can't hear you. You're a poop-poop head. Stop preaching at me. Stop asking me questions. Stop making me think. Stop talking about the issue of the OP, I just want to bitch and gossip about you. That's all I want to do.

Rawlings: Then piss off, you self-righteous, moralizing little prick.​

End of discussion.

That is how it always goes with you dogmatically closed-minded relativists.

actually, peebrain, it went down like this:

inevitable: is there proof of god in this thread?
justin davis aka md: faggot has his ears plugged! read the thread!
md rawlings aka justin davis: listen faggot, i am the greatest logician of evaaaaaa! i dont ACTUALLY have to prove anything!
inevitable: whatever guys, you seem emotional, i just asked and you havent answered.
justin davis aka md plumber: fancy pants, go flame somewhere else faggot, you liar, you you you you.....fancy pants.
md rawlings aka justin plumber: calm down with the name calling justin, this faggot will get his due.


blah blah blah. you two/one are embarrassments to humanity.

that is about what it appeared to be from my point of view.

Shut up, Inevitable. You were told there was. You were given the evidence and the proof. You read nothing. Thought about nothing. Opened your mind to nothing. You even quoted the Bible . . . some utterly irrelevant passage, and then contradictorily thumbed your nose at Romans 1: 18 - 20 which utterly negates your foolish claims that there is no evidence or proof provided by God to humanity! You don't believe. You have no faith. You don't believe God or His word. You're sitting there behind your computer screen aligning yourself with an atheist who has shown himself to be a pathological liar and an avowed enemy of God and His truths . . . as you spurn the theist who points to the testimony of scripture and the universally apparent facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin which you never once directly addressed via the standards of academic discourse: demonstrated that you actually understand what you deny to be true with a coherent counterargument as to why these things aren't true!

What did you give us instead?

"Don't preach to me!"

"I don't want to discuss it!"

"Stop asking me questions!"

"Stop telling me things!"

Fingers struck in ears "La-la-la-la-la-la. I can't here you."

Mockery. Personal attacks. Derision. Moralisms.

You're a pathological lair just like GT. You're a phony. You know for fact that's the real truth of our encounter. I tried to share something with you, and you behaved like a smarmy, snot-nosed little prick. You don't really believe in God at all. The fact that you won't believe God and renounce homosexuality tells me that you don't really believe in God or His word.

 

[Inevitable]

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.

I can explain the root of this. Particularly the bizarre behaviour demonstrated by Justin and md. They don't have any proof if their claims, if they did they would have posted it. But they are frustrated because of that. So they lash out at posters that point that out.

I personally don't take offense to it, really it's kind of funny. Because they are saying indirectly that they have no argument.

 

[Inevitable]

Shut up, Inevitable.

No.

You were told there was. You were given the evidence and the proof. You read nothing. Thought about nothing. Opened your mind to nothing. You even quoted the Bible . . . some utterly irrelevant passage, and then contradictorily thumbed your nose at Romans 1: 18 - 20 which utterly negates your foolish claims that there is no evidence or proof provided by God to humanity! You don't believe. You have no faith. You don't believe God or His word. You're sitting there behind your computer screen aligning yourself with an atheist who has shown himself to be a pathological liar and an avowed enemy of God and His truths . . . as you spurn the theist who points to the testimony of scripture and the universally apparent facts of human cognition regarding the problems of existence and origin which you never once directly addressed via the standards of academic discourse: demonstrated that you actually understand what you deny to be true with a coherent counterargument as to why these things aren't true!

What did you give us instead?

"Don't preach to me!"

"I don't want to discuss it!"

"Stop asking me questions!"

"Stop telling me things!"

Fingers struck in ears "La-la-la-la-la-la. I can't here you."

Mockery. Personal attacks. Derision. Moralisms.

You're a pathological lair just like GT. You're a phony. You know for fact that's the real truth of our encounter. I tried to share something with you, and you behaved like a smarmy, snot-nosed little prick. You don't really believe in God at all. The fact that you won't believe God and renounce homosexuality tells me that you don't really believe in God or His word.

^^^Childishness that doesn't merit more response than this.