Yikes, sky dad...morals are absolute, though

[G.T.]

And...you believe that?

Yes, Jesus taught another more rational way to understand and conform to the divine commands that is not necessarily directly connected to the literal meaning of the words used that reveals the wisdom of God and fulfills the promise of life, comprehension.

Yes, the Jews have never expected the Messiah to be anything other than a human being, another Jew, chosen by God for the specific purpose of "conveying all of God's commands." Deut; 18:18.

And yes, as long as you realize that satan represents a specific human archetype, not an invisible malevolent spirit, that uses mind control, what the ancient people thought of as sorcery, to bend the unsuspecting to their will like any cultic charlatan despot or tyrant uses subtle deceptions, specious promises, and threats of real and imaginary violence to collect subservient followers like disposable possessions to do their bidding and fleece on a regular basis for their own selfish ambitions lust for power and personal gain.

Hmm, sounds to me like you just painted Satan onto materialistic phenomena. Why the need for the flowery descriptions? Seems to me like you could be more.clear and empirical to describe it in...ahem...lesser terms. Terms that don't involve magical entities.

Satan, the talking serpent, represents a specific human archetype. How is that not clear?

Materialistic phenomena? Flowery descriptions? Magical entities?

What the fuck is wrong with you?

I think he's taking issue with your toe half in and toe half out portrayal ~ as am I, but admittedly, you're very unclear about it.

You believe the stories are allegorical/myths about human archetypes...
But believe in Jesus despite the source of our knowledge of Jesus being no better, rationally...

And believe in a deity with a lack of any empirical evidence of consequence, above "faith," for any rationalist to conclude at this juncture.

If I say that satan is a mythological representation of a human archetype and someone responds by accusing me of having a belief in magical entities they are either not paying attention or they are not very rational.


Aside from that what makes you think that I have no empirical evidence of consequence above faith?

If a person doesn't have the intelligence to decipher the deep and mysterious metaphors and analogies like talking serpents, angels, demons, and all of the wild beasts of the field, they are not equipped to see God even if a dead person should rise from the grave and ascend into heaven right in front of their eyes..


Show me that you understand something of consequence and I will show you more.

All you're trying to do, is ridicule folks for belief in irrational things while calling your irrational belief rational - and without empirical support. You've literally only pointed to hearsay evidence, which is not a strong foundation for anything, let alone a proof of a God.

 

[hobelim]

Yes, Jesus taught another more rational way to understand and conform to the divine commands that is not necessarily directly connected to the literal meaning of the words used that reveals the wisdom of God and fulfills the promise of life, comprehension.

Yes, the Jews have never expected the Messiah to be anything other than a human being, another Jew, chosen by God for the specific purpose of "conveying all of God's commands." Deut; 18:18.

And yes, as long as you realize that satan represents a specific human archetype, not an invisible malevolent spirit, that uses mind control, what the ancient people thought of as sorcery, to bend the unsuspecting to their will like any cultic charlatan despot or tyrant uses subtle deceptions, specious promises, and threats of real and imaginary violence to collect subservient followers like disposable possessions to do their bidding and fleece on a regular basis for their own selfish ambitions lust for power and personal gain.

Hmm, sounds to me like you just painted Satan onto materialistic phenomena. Why the need for the flowery descriptions? Seems to me like you could be more.clear and empirical to describe it in...ahem...lesser terms. Terms that don't involve magical entities.

Satan, the talking serpent, represents a specific human archetype. How is that not clear?

Materialistic phenomena? Flowery descriptions? Magical entities?

What the fuck is wrong with you?

I think he's taking issue with your toe half in and toe half out portrayal ~ as am I, but admittedly, you're very unclear about it.

You believe the stories are allegorical/myths about human archetypes...
But believe in Jesus despite the source of our knowledge of Jesus being no better, rationally...

And believe in a deity with a lack of any empirical evidence of consequence, above "faith," for any rationalist to conclude at this juncture.

If I say that satan is a mythological representation of a human archetype and someone responds by accusing me of having a belief in magical entities they are either not paying attention or they are not very rational.


Aside from that what makes you think that I have no empirical evidence of consequence above faith?

If a person doesn't have the intelligence to decipher the deep and mysterious metaphors and analogies like talking serpents, angels, demons, and all of the wild beasts of the field, they are not equipped to see God even if a dead person should rise from the grave and ascend into heaven right in front of their eyes..


Show me that you understand something of consequence and I will show you more.

All you're trying to do, is ridicule folks for belief in irrational things while calling your irrational belief rational - and without empirical support. You've literally only pointed to hearsay evidence, which is not a strong foundation for anything, let alone a proof of a God.

one step at a time.

So far some people can't figure out what a talking serpent in scripture represents even though they argue with talking serpents in real life on a daily basis.

Astonishing!

If they can't see what is in front of their eyes, how are they supposed to perceive God who is spirit?


If they don't understand scripture how are they supposed to see the power of God at work in the world?


If you want me to point to proof of a God, show me you can grasp the hidden teaching of a bronze age fairytale about a talking serpent.

Bring me the broom stick of the wicked witch of the west and I will grant you any request.

 

[G.T.]

Hmm, sounds to me like you just painted Satan onto materialistic phenomena. Why the need for the flowery descriptions? Seems to me like you could be more.clear and empirical to describe it in...ahem...lesser terms. Terms that don't involve magical entities.

Satan, the talking serpent, represents a specific human archetype. How is that not clear?

Materialistic phenomena? Flowery descriptions? Magical entities?

What the fuck is wrong with you?

I think he's taking issue with your toe half in and toe half out portrayal ~ as am I, but admittedly, you're very unclear about it.

You believe the stories are allegorical/myths about human archetypes...
But believe in Jesus despite the source of our knowledge of Jesus being no better, rationally...

And believe in a deity with a lack of any empirical evidence of consequence, above "faith," for any rationalist to conclude at this juncture.

If I say that satan is a mythological representation of a human archetype and someone responds by accusing me of having a belief in magical entities they are either not paying attention or they are not very rational.


Aside from that what makes you think that I have no empirical evidence of consequence above faith?

If a person doesn't have the intelligence to decipher the deep and mysterious metaphors and analogies like talking serpents, angels, demons, and all of the wild beasts of the field, they are not equipped to see God even if a dead person should rise from the grave and ascend into heaven right in front of their eyes..


Show me that you understand something of consequence and I will show you more.

All you're trying to do, is ridicule folks for belief in irrational things while calling your irrational belief rational - and without empirical support. You've literally only pointed to hearsay evidence, which is not a strong foundation for anything, let alone a proof of a God.

one step at a time.

So far some people can't figure out what a talking serpent in scripture represents even though they argue with talking serpents in real life on a daily basis.

Astonishing!

If they can't see what is in front of their eyes, how are they supposed to perceive God who is spirit?


If they don't understand scripture how are they supposed to see the power of God at work in the world?


If you want me to point to proof of a God, show me you can grasp the hidden teaching of a bronze age fairytale about a talking serpent.

Bring me the broom stick of the wicked witch of the west and I will grant you any request.

You miss the point entirely. I see them both as bronze age fairy tales - the God as well as the Bible. You haven't givin any rational evidence to the contrary - and hearsay testimony doesn't cut that butter.

 

[hobelim]

Satan, the talking serpent, represents a specific human archetype. How is that not clear?

Materialistic phenomena? Flowery descriptions? Magical entities?

What the fuck is wrong with you?

I think he's taking issue with your toe half in and toe half out portrayal ~ as am I, but admittedly, you're very unclear about it.

You believe the stories are allegorical/myths about human archetypes...
But believe in Jesus despite the source of our knowledge of Jesus being no better, rationally...

And believe in a deity with a lack of any empirical evidence of consequence, above "faith," for any rationalist to conclude at this juncture.

If I say that satan is a mythological representation of a human archetype and someone responds by accusing me of having a belief in magical entities they are either not paying attention or they are not very rational.


Aside from that what makes you think that I have no empirical evidence of consequence above faith?

If a person doesn't have the intelligence to decipher the deep and mysterious metaphors and analogies like talking serpents, angels, demons, and all of the wild beasts of the field, they are not equipped to see God even if a dead person should rise from the grave and ascend into heaven right in front of their eyes..


Show me that you understand something of consequence and I will show you more.

All you're trying to do, is ridicule folks for belief in irrational things while calling your irrational belief rational - and without empirical support. You've literally only pointed to hearsay evidence, which is not a strong foundation for anything, let alone a proof of a God.

one step at a time.

So far some people can't figure out what a talking serpent in scripture represents even though they argue with talking serpents in real life on a daily basis.

Astonishing!

If they can't see what is in front of their eyes, how are they supposed to perceive God who is spirit?


If they don't understand scripture how are they supposed to see the power of God at work in the world?


If you want me to point to proof of a God, show me you can grasp the hidden teaching of a bronze age fairytale about a talking serpent.

Bring me the broom stick of the wicked witch of the west and I will grant you any request.

You miss the point entirely. I see them both as bronze age fairy tales - the God as well as the Bible. You haven't givin any rational evidence to the contrary - and hearsay testimony doesn't cut that butter.

Ok, so far so good.

If you see them all as bronze age fairy tales , what is the hidden teaching? Who do the characters represent?

How would you know how to look for God and where to look for God if you don't know that?

 

[G.T.]

I think he's taking issue with your toe half in and toe half out portrayal ~ as am I, but admittedly, you're very unclear about it.

You believe the stories are allegorical/myths about human archetypes...
But believe in Jesus despite the source of our knowledge of Jesus being no better, rationally...

And believe in a deity with a lack of any empirical evidence of consequence, above "faith," for any rationalist to conclude at this juncture.

If I say that satan is a mythological representation of a human archetype and someone responds by accusing me of having a belief in magical entities they are either not paying attention or they are not very rational.


Aside from that what makes you think that I have no empirical evidence of consequence above faith?

If a person doesn't have the intelligence to decipher the deep and mysterious metaphors and analogies like talking serpents, angels, demons, and all of the wild beasts of the field, they are not equipped to see God even if a dead person should rise from the grave and ascend into heaven right in front of their eyes..


Show me that you understand something of consequence and I will show you more.

All you're trying to do, is ridicule folks for belief in irrational things while calling your irrational belief rational - and without empirical support. You've literally only pointed to hearsay evidence, which is not a strong foundation for anything, let alone a proof of a God.

one step at a time.

So far some people can't figure out what a talking serpent in scripture represents even though they argue with talking serpents in real life on a daily basis.

Astonishing!

If they can't see what is in front of their eyes, how are they supposed to perceive God who is spirit?


If they don't understand scripture how are they supposed to see the power of God at work in the world?


If you want me to point to proof of a God, show me you can grasp the hidden teaching of a bronze age fairytale about a talking serpent.

Bring me the broom stick of the wicked witch of the west and I will grant you any request.

You miss the point entirely. I see them both as bronze age fairy tales - the God as well as the Bible. You haven't givin any rational evidence to the contrary - and hearsay testimony doesn't cut that butter.

Ok, so far so good.

If you see them all as bronze age fairy tales , what is the hidden teaching? Who do the characters represent?

Figure that out, apply that teaching, and God will make himself known to you.

Dude,

Allegorical and quite obvious descriptions of daily human life as we hurr-de-durr through the world day to day are not that impressive, and the wisdom is simple sophistry. You have a tiny "faith" in the human mind and its evolution, and that's fine - but you're deflecting from any attempt to prove the God you believe in rationally.

It's not a game, you either can or you cannot, and to date nobody's been able to.

A logical argument of merit doesn't require the second party for validity. If you've got logic that suffices, you could easily lay that down despite any input from an outside observer. You can't, and so instead of engaging in that you deflect to meta discussions until you feel you're able to point to someone's lack of intelligence or ability to "grasp" something. That's not a strong argument, it's a souped up deflection. You don't need anyone else to make your case, else, you don't have one.

 

[hobelim]

If I say that satan is a mythological representation of a human archetype and someone responds by accusing me of having a belief in magical entities they are either not paying attention or they are not very rational.


Aside from that what makes you think that I have no empirical evidence of consequence above faith?

If a person doesn't have the intelligence to decipher the deep and mysterious metaphors and analogies like talking serpents, angels, demons, and all of the wild beasts of the field, they are not equipped to see God even if a dead person should rise from the grave and ascend into heaven right in front of their eyes..


Show me that you understand something of consequence and I will show you more.

All you're trying to do, is ridicule folks for belief in irrational things while calling your irrational belief rational - and without empirical support. You've literally only pointed to hearsay evidence, which is not a strong foundation for anything, let alone a proof of a God.

one step at a time.

So far some people can't figure out what a talking serpent in scripture represents even though they argue with talking serpents in real life on a daily basis.

Astonishing!

If they can't see what is in front of their eyes, how are they supposed to perceive God who is spirit?


If they don't understand scripture how are they supposed to see the power of God at work in the world?


If you want me to point to proof of a God, show me you can grasp the hidden teaching of a bronze age fairytale about a talking serpent.

Bring me the broom stick of the wicked witch of the west and I will grant you any request.

You miss the point entirely. I see them both as bronze age fairy tales - the God as well as the Bible. You haven't givin any rational evidence to the contrary - and hearsay testimony doesn't cut that butter.

Ok, so far so good.

If you see them all as bronze age fairy tales , what is the hidden teaching? Who do the characters represent?

Figure that out, apply that teaching, and God will make himself known to you.

Dude,

Allegorical and quite obvious descriptions of daily human life as we hurr-de-durr through the world day to day are not that impressive, and the wisdom is simple sophistry. You have a tiny "faith" in the human mind and its evolution, and that's fine - but you're deflecting from any attempt to prove the God you believe in rationally.

It's not a game, you either can or you cannot, and to date nobody's been able to.

A logical argument of merit doesn't require the second party for validity. If you've got logic that suffices, you could easily lay that down despite any input from an outside observer. You can't, and so instead of engaging in that you deflect to meta discussions until you feel you're able to point to someone's lack of intelligence or ability to "grasp" something. That's not a strong argument, it's a souped up deflection. You don't need anyone else to make your case, else, you don't have one.

People like you argue with talking serpents daily yet dismiss the story about a talking serpent as if it was an irrational belief in something ridiculous.

You actually need proof that talking serpents are real?? There is no evidence ? lol....


You have failed to grasp the hidden meaning of the words and subjects. You don't even know your A, B, C's.

Is it any wonder why you don't understand what you read? Why you do not see any evidence of God?

 

[G.T.]

All you're trying to do, is ridicule folks for belief in irrational things while calling your irrational belief rational - and without empirical support. You've literally only pointed to hearsay evidence, which is not a strong foundation for anything, let alone a proof of a God.

one step at a time.

So far some people can't figure out what a talking serpent in scripture represents even though they argue with talking serpents in real life on a daily basis.

Astonishing!

If they can't see what is in front of their eyes, how are they supposed to perceive God who is spirit?


If they don't understand scripture how are they supposed to see the power of God at work in the world?


If you want me to point to proof of a God, show me you can grasp the hidden teaching of a bronze age fairytale about a talking serpent.

Bring me the broom stick of the wicked witch of the west and I will grant you any request.

You miss the point entirely. I see them both as bronze age fairy tales - the God as well as the Bible. You haven't givin any rational evidence to the contrary - and hearsay testimony doesn't cut that butter.

Ok, so far so good.

If you see them all as bronze age fairy tales , what is the hidden teaching? Who do the characters represent?

Figure that out, apply that teaching, and God will make himself known to you.

Dude,

Allegorical and quite obvious descriptions of daily human life as we hurr-de-durr through the world day to day are not that impressive, and the wisdom is simple sophistry. You have a tiny "faith" in the human mind and its evolution, and that's fine - but you're deflecting from any attempt to prove the God you believe in rationally.

It's not a game, you either can or you cannot, and to date nobody's been able to.

A logical argument of merit doesn't require the second party for validity. If you've got logic that suffices, you could easily lay that down despite any input from an outside observer. You can't, and so instead of engaging in that you deflect to meta discussions until you feel you're able to point to someone's lack of intelligence or ability to "grasp" something. That's not a strong argument, it's a souped up deflection. You don't need anyone else to make your case, else, you don't have one.

People like you argue with talking serpents daily yet dismiss the story about a talking serpent as if it was an irrational belief in something ridiculous.

You actually need proof that talking serpents are real?? There is no evidence ? lol....


You don't even know your A, B, C's.

Is it any wonder why you don't understand what you read, that you do not see any evidence of God?

That was another deflection.

I can see there's a pattern here, which is disappointing. I'm not in any way, shape or form going to engage in your meta discussion regarding humans as being talking serpents - not literally n'or metaphorically.

I already advised you my thoughts - it's a fairy tale....and here you are dishonestly engaging in accusations of me believing it's literal. That's dishonesty, not humility and charitable discussion.

I'm placing your feet directly over the fire, and you're dodging.

Positive claims, in the rational world, require logical justifications. I'm not making a positive claim (God doesn't exist), you're making the positive claim (God exists).

You don't need a second interlocutor to respond to the meta discussion to simply lay your case down - and let it stand on its merit. All you've done is dodge that, and so you're stuck on who does and doesn't believe what..... about talking serpents. You're playing a game of sophistry in lieu of being able to articulate a syllogism which justifies a belief in God.

Nobody, to date, has presented any empirical evidence for a rational person to conclude that a (God exists).

 

[hobelim]

one step at a time.

So far some people can't figure out what a talking serpent in scripture represents even though they argue with talking serpents in real life on a daily basis.

Astonishing!

If they can't see what is in front of their eyes, how are they supposed to perceive God who is spirit?


If they don't understand scripture how are they supposed to see the power of God at work in the world?


If you want me to point to proof of a God, show me you can grasp the hidden teaching of a bronze age fairytale about a talking serpent.

Bring me the broom stick of the wicked witch of the west and I will grant you any request.

You miss the point entirely. I see them both as bronze age fairy tales - the God as well as the Bible. You haven't givin any rational evidence to the contrary - and hearsay testimony doesn't cut that butter.

Ok, so far so good.

If you see them all as bronze age fairy tales , what is the hidden teaching? Who do the characters represent?

Figure that out, apply that teaching, and God will make himself known to you.

Dude,

Allegorical and quite obvious descriptions of daily human life as we hurr-de-durr through the world day to day are not that impressive, and the wisdom is simple sophistry. You have a tiny "faith" in the human mind and its evolution, and that's fine - but you're deflecting from any attempt to prove the God you believe in rationally.

It's not a game, you either can or you cannot, and to date nobody's been able to.

A logical argument of merit doesn't require the second party for validity. If you've got logic that suffices, you could easily lay that down despite any input from an outside observer. You can't, and so instead of engaging in that you deflect to meta discussions until you feel you're able to point to someone's lack of intelligence or ability to "grasp" something. That's not a strong argument, it's a souped up deflection. You don't need anyone else to make your case, else, you don't have one.

People like you argue with talking serpents daily yet dismiss the story about a talking serpent as if it was an irrational belief in something ridiculous.

You actually need proof that talking serpents are real?? There is no evidence ? lol....


You don't even know your A, B, C's.

Is it any wonder why you don't understand what you read, that you do not see any evidence of God?

That was another deflection.

I can see there's a pattern here, which is disappointing. I'm not in any way, shape or form going to engage in your meta discussion regarding humans as being talking serpents - not literally n'or metaphorically.

I already advised you my thoughts - it's a fairy tale....and here you are dishonestly engaging in accusations of me believing it's literal. That's dishonesty, not humility and charitable discussion.

I'm placing your feet directly over the fire, and you're dodging.

Positive claims, in the rational world, require logical justifications. I'm not making a positive claim (God doesn't exist), you're making the positive claim (God exists).

You don't need a second interlocutor to respond to the meta discussion to simply lay your case down - and let it stand on its merit. All you've done is dodge that, and so you're stuck on who does and doesn't believe what..... about talking serpents. You're playing a game of sophistry in lieu of being able to articulate a syllogism which justifies a belief in God.

Nobody, to date, has presented any empirical evidence for a rational person to conclude that a (God exists).

No, you are being dishonest. You say that its a fairy tale but don't have the integrity to even take a shot at what it might be teaching but instead try to punch holes in my insistence that you can't find proof of God without understanding the teaching of said fairy tales and who or what the characters represent whether the talking serpent or God.

You are accusing me of failing to provide evidence for something that you have failed to comprehend.

Thats not only intellectually dishonest, thats flat out cowardly.

 

[G.T.]

You miss the point entirely. I see them both as bronze age fairy tales - the God as well as the Bible. You haven't givin any rational evidence to the contrary - and hearsay testimony doesn't cut that butter.

Ok, so far so good.

If you see them all as bronze age fairy tales , what is the hidden teaching? Who do the characters represent?

Figure that out, apply that teaching, and God will make himself known to you.

Dude,

Allegorical and quite obvious descriptions of daily human life as we hurr-de-durr through the world day to day are not that impressive, and the wisdom is simple sophistry. You have a tiny "faith" in the human mind and its evolution, and that's fine - but you're deflecting from any attempt to prove the God you believe in rationally.

It's not a game, you either can or you cannot, and to date nobody's been able to.

A logical argument of merit doesn't require the second party for validity. If you've got logic that suffices, you could easily lay that down despite any input from an outside observer. You can't, and so instead of engaging in that you deflect to meta discussions until you feel you're able to point to someone's lack of intelligence or ability to "grasp" something. That's not a strong argument, it's a souped up deflection. You don't need anyone else to make your case, else, you don't have one.

People like you argue with talking serpents daily yet dismiss the story about a talking serpent as if it was an irrational belief in something ridiculous.

You actually need proof that talking serpents are real?? There is no evidence ? lol....


You don't even know your A, B, C's.

Is it any wonder why you don't understand what you read, that you do not see any evidence of God?

That was another deflection.

I can see there's a pattern here, which is disappointing. I'm not in any way, shape or form going to engage in your meta discussion regarding humans as being talking serpents - not literally n'or metaphorically.

I already advised you my thoughts - it's a fairy tale....and here you are dishonestly engaging in accusations of me believing it's literal. That's dishonesty, not humility and charitable discussion.

I'm placing your feet directly over the fire, and you're dodging.

Positive claims, in the rational world, require logical justifications. I'm not making a positive claim (God doesn't exist), you're making the positive claim (God exists).

You don't need a second interlocutor to respond to the meta discussion to simply lay your case down - and let it stand on its merit. All you've done is dodge that, and so you're stuck on who does and doesn't believe what..... about talking serpents. You're playing a game of sophistry in lieu of being able to articulate a syllogism which justifies a belief in God.

Nobody, to date, has presented any empirical evidence for a rational person to conclude that a (God exists).

No, you are being dishonest. You say that its a fairy tale but don't have the integrity to even take a shot at what it might be teaching but instead try to punch holes in my insistence that you can't find proof of God without understanding the teaching of said fairy tales and who or what the characters represent whether the talking serpent or God.



Thats not only intellectually dishonest, thats flat out cowardly.

^ This is another deflection.

Nobody that's ever lived could prevent you from a syllogism which shows a rational proof of God, if you had one.

All you're doing is deflecting to me, which means that you do not have one. That's fine.

 

[hobelim]

Ok, so far so good.

If you see them all as bronze age fairy tales , what is the hidden teaching? Who do the characters represent?

Figure that out, apply that teaching, and God will make himself known to you.

Dude,

Allegorical and quite obvious descriptions of daily human life as we hurr-de-durr through the world day to day are not that impressive, and the wisdom is simple sophistry. You have a tiny "faith" in the human mind and its evolution, and that's fine - but you're deflecting from any attempt to prove the God you believe in rationally.

It's not a game, you either can or you cannot, and to date nobody's been able to.

A logical argument of merit doesn't require the second party for validity. If you've got logic that suffices, you could easily lay that down despite any input from an outside observer. You can't, and so instead of engaging in that you deflect to meta discussions until you feel you're able to point to someone's lack of intelligence or ability to "grasp" something. That's not a strong argument, it's a souped up deflection. You don't need anyone else to make your case, else, you don't have one.

People like you argue with talking serpents daily yet dismiss the story about a talking serpent as if it was an irrational belief in something ridiculous.

You actually need proof that talking serpents are real?? There is no evidence ? lol....


You don't even know your A, B, C's.

Is it any wonder why you don't understand what you read, that you do not see any evidence of God?

That was another deflection.

I can see there's a pattern here, which is disappointing. I'm not in any way, shape or form going to engage in your meta discussion regarding humans as being talking serpents - not literally n'or metaphorically.

I already advised you my thoughts - it's a fairy tale....and here you are dishonestly engaging in accusations of me believing it's literal. That's dishonesty, not humility and charitable discussion.

I'm placing your feet directly over the fire, and you're dodging.

Positive claims, in the rational world, require logical justifications. I'm not making a positive claim (God doesn't exist), you're making the positive claim (God exists).

You don't need a second interlocutor to respond to the meta discussion to simply lay your case down - and let it stand on its merit. All you've done is dodge that, and so you're stuck on who does and doesn't believe what..... about talking serpents. You're playing a game of sophistry in lieu of being able to articulate a syllogism which justifies a belief in God.

Nobody, to date, has presented any empirical evidence for a rational person to conclude that a (God exists).

No, you are being dishonest. You say that its a fairy tale but don't have the integrity to even take a shot at what it might be teaching but instead try to punch holes in my insistence that you can't find proof of God without understanding the teaching of said fairy tales and who or what the characters represent whether the talking serpent or God.



Thats not only intellectually dishonest, thats flat out cowardly.

^ This is another deflection.

Nobody that's ever lived could prevent you from a syllogism which shows a rational proof of God, if you had one.

All you're doing is deflecting to me, which means that you do not have one. That's fine.

lol...You are right! I do not have proof for any God that only exists within the confusion of your mind born out confusion and an inability to grasp what ancient people were teaching their children.

And I will never try to prove true what scripture is not about.

I am just alerting you to the fact that you have failed to understand scripture and the power of God.

You say you don't believe in any fairy tale God, well goody for you, neither do I.

 

[G.T.]

I'll help you with how your logic is supposed to look.

You've said, "you can't find proof of God without understanding the teaching of said fairy tales and who or what the characters represent whether the talking serpent or God."

This means, your syllogism would go something like:

If the Bible means X, then this proves Y.
The Bible means X.
Therefore, Y.

It doesn't take a second interlocutor for you to present your case, that's a deflection.

 

[G.T.]

Dude,

Allegorical and quite obvious descriptions of daily human life as we hurr-de-durr through the world day to day are not that impressive, and the wisdom is simple sophistry. You have a tiny "faith" in the human mind and its evolution, and that's fine - but you're deflecting from any attempt to prove the God you believe in rationally.

It's not a game, you either can or you cannot, and to date nobody's been able to.

A logical argument of merit doesn't require the second party for validity. If you've got logic that suffices, you could easily lay that down despite any input from an outside observer. You can't, and so instead of engaging in that you deflect to meta discussions until you feel you're able to point to someone's lack of intelligence or ability to "grasp" something. That's not a strong argument, it's a souped up deflection. You don't need anyone else to make your case, else, you don't have one.

People like you argue with talking serpents daily yet dismiss the story about a talking serpent as if it was an irrational belief in something ridiculous.

You actually need proof that talking serpents are real?? There is no evidence ? lol....


You don't even know your A, B, C's.

Is it any wonder why you don't understand what you read, that you do not see any evidence of God?

That was another deflection.

I can see there's a pattern here, which is disappointing. I'm not in any way, shape or form going to engage in your meta discussion regarding humans as being talking serpents - not literally n'or metaphorically.

I already advised you my thoughts - it's a fairy tale....and here you are dishonestly engaging in accusations of me believing it's literal. That's dishonesty, not humility and charitable discussion.

I'm placing your feet directly over the fire, and you're dodging.

Positive claims, in the rational world, require logical justifications. I'm not making a positive claim (God doesn't exist), you're making the positive claim (God exists).

You don't need a second interlocutor to respond to the meta discussion to simply lay your case down - and let it stand on its merit. All you've done is dodge that, and so you're stuck on who does and doesn't believe what..... about talking serpents. You're playing a game of sophistry in lieu of being able to articulate a syllogism which justifies a belief in God.

Nobody, to date, has presented any empirical evidence for a rational person to conclude that a (God exists).

No, you are being dishonest. You say that its a fairy tale but don't have the integrity to even take a shot at what it might be teaching but instead try to punch holes in my insistence that you can't find proof of God without understanding the teaching of said fairy tales and who or what the characters represent whether the talking serpent or God.



Thats not only intellectually dishonest, thats flat out cowardly.

^ This is another deflection.

Nobody that's ever lived could prevent you from a syllogism which shows a rational proof of God, if you had one.

All you're doing is deflecting to me, which means that you do not have one. That's fine.

lol...You are right! I do not have proof for any God that only exists within the confusion of your mind born out confusion and an inability to grasp what ancient people were teaching their children.

And I will never try to prove true what scripture is not about.

I am just alerting you to the fact that you have failed to understand scripture and the power of God.

You say you don't believe in any fairy tale God, well goody for you, neither do I.

This is another deflection - you can either Justify your belief in God, rationally, or you cannot. So far, you're unable to produce said justification but deflect to others' beliefs.

 

[hobelim]

I'll help you with how your logic is supposed to look.

You've said, "you can't find proof of God without understanding the teaching of said fairy tales and who or what the characters represent whether the talking serpent or God."

This means, your syllogism would go something like:

If the Bible means X, then this proves Y.
The Bible means X.
Therefore, Y.

It doesn't take a second interlocutor for you to present your case, that's a deflection.

Damn.. I am not trying to prove the existence of God. I am showing you that the fairy tales are teaching something that is not directly connected to the literal meanings of the words used.

Does this shock you?


You might as well be asking for me to prove that pigs can build houses and if I can't then the story about the three pigs is all hogwash even though it is not about pigs building houses. It is teaching children something that is not directly connected to the literal meaning of the words used. Do you need proof for that? WTF.


You are looking for proof of a God that poofed the universe into existence even though the story of genesis is not about God poofing the universe into existence..


Its unfreakingbelievably stupid,.

 

[G.T.]

I'll help you with how your logic is supposed to look.

You've said, "you can't find proof of God without understanding the teaching of said fairy tales and who or what the characters represent whether the talking serpent or God."

This means, your syllogism would go something like:

If the Bible means X, then this proves Y.
The Bible means X.
Therefore, Y.

It doesn't take a second interlocutor for you to present your case, that's a deflection.

Damn.. I am not trying to prove the existence of God. I am showing you that the fairy tales are teaching something that is not directly connected to the literal meanings of the words used.

Does this shock you?


You might as well be asking for me to prove that pigs can build houses and if I can't then the story about the three pigs is all hogwash even though it is not about pigs building houses.


You are looking for proof of a God that poofed the universe into existence even though the story of genesis is not about God poofing the universe into existence..


Its unfreakingbelievably stupid,.

Nope, I'm asking you to rationally justify YOUR professed belief in "whatever the fuck YOU think God means."

And to do so, you're deflecting to others. AS you just did, yet again.

Here's how I justify my non-belief, either way: No conclusive justification has been provided for, or against, any God.

The burden of proof, in a rational discussion, is on the interlocutor making the positive claim - in this case, that is you. You have not presented your case, you deflect into the meta and in this past post, deflected to what you "think" I'm looking for proof of.

All you have to do is ask. Here's what the specifics of the challenge are, to the one making positive claims: rationally justify YOUR professed belief in "whatever the fuck YOU think God means."

Or, deflect.

 

[hobelim]

I'll help you with how your logic is supposed to look.

You've said, "you can't find proof of God without understanding the teaching of said fairy tales and who or what the characters represent whether the talking serpent or God."

This means, your syllogism would go something like:

If the Bible means X, then this proves Y.
The Bible means X.
Therefore, Y.

It doesn't take a second interlocutor for you to present your case, that's a deflection.

Damn.. I am not trying to prove the existence of God. I am showing you that the fairy tales are teaching something that is not directly connected to the literal meanings of the words used.

Does this shock you?


You might as well be asking for me to prove that pigs can build houses and if I can't then the story about the three pigs is all hogwash even though it is not about pigs building houses.


You are looking for proof of a God that poofed the universe into existence even though the story of genesis is not about God poofing the universe into existence..


Its unfreakingbelievably stupid,.

Nope, I'm asking you to rationally justify YOUR professed belief in "whatever the fuck YOU think God means."

And to do so, you're deflecting to others. AS you just did, yet again.

Here's how I justify my non-belief, either way: No conclusive justification has been provided for, or against, any God.

The burden of proof, in a rational discussion, is on the interlocutor making the positive claim - in this case, that is you. You have not presented your case, you deflect into the meta and in this past post, deflected to what you "think" I'm looking for proof of.

All you have to do is ask. Here's what the specifics of the challenge are, to the one making positive claims: rationally justify YOUR professed belief in "whatever the fuck YOU think God means."

Or, deflect.

Why would I even try to rationally "justify" my beliefs about God which conform to and have been confirmed by reality decades ago to a person who doesn't even know what the fuck I mean and has demonstrated an inability to decipher complicated literary metaphors such as talking serpents aimed at teaching children realities about the world.


Thats why I told you, one step at a time. If you can't see talking serpents when they are trying to poison your mind how could you possible perceive evidence of the living God even if he smacked you upside the head and threw you into hell?


I don't have to justify my beliefs to anyone. Yes, I made an affirmative claim. Its up to you to do the things that brought me to an awareness and experience of the living God to see for yourself if its true or not.

If I make the claim that if you smoke a joint you will get high its up to you to see if its true or not. I can't prove it to you unless you try...

You just don't have the balls to take a hit, and thats the only thing being revealed. Something ugly lurking inside of you is exposing itself willy nilly

 

[G.T.]

I'll help you with how your logic is supposed to look.

You've said, "you can't find proof of God without understanding the teaching of said fairy tales and who or what the characters represent whether the talking serpent or God."

This means, your syllogism would go something like:

If the Bible means X, then this proves Y.
The Bible means X.
Therefore, Y.

It doesn't take a second interlocutor for you to present your case, that's a deflection.

Damn.. I am not trying to prove the existence of God. I am showing you that the fairy tales are teaching something that is not directly connected to the literal meanings of the words used.

Does this shock you?


You might as well be asking for me to prove that pigs can build houses and if I can't then the story about the three pigs is all hogwash even though it is not about pigs building houses.


You are looking for proof of a God that poofed the universe into existence even though the story of genesis is not about God poofing the universe into existence..


Its unfreakingbelievably stupid,.

Nope, I'm asking you to rationally justify YOUR professed belief in "whatever the fuck YOU think God means."

And to do so, you're deflecting to others. AS you just did, yet again.

Here's how I justify my non-belief, either way: No conclusive justification has been provided for, or against, any God.

The burden of proof, in a rational discussion, is on the interlocutor making the positive claim - in this case, that is you. You have not presented your case, you deflect into the meta and in this past post, deflected to what you "think" I'm looking for proof of.

All you have to do is ask. Here's what the specifics of the challenge are, to the one making positive claims: rationally justify YOUR professed belief in "whatever the fuck YOU think God means."

Or, deflect.

Why would I even try to rationally "justify" my beliefs about God which conform to and have been confirmed by reality decades ago to a person who doesn't even know what the fuck I mean and has demonstrated an inability to decipher complicated literary metaphors such as talking serpents aimed at teaching children realities about the world.


Thats why I told you, one step at a time. If you can't see talking serpents when they are trying to poison your mind how could you possible perceive evidence of the living God even if he smacked you upside the head and threw you into hell?


I don't have to justify my beliefs to anyone. Yes, I made an affirmative claim. Its up to you to do the things that brought me to an awareness and experience of the living God to see for yourself if its true or not.

If I make the claim that if you smoke a joint you will get high its up to you to see if its true or not. I can't prove it to you unless you try...

You just don't have the balls to take a hit, and thats the only thing being revealed. Something ugly lurking inside of you is exposing itself willy nilly

Deflection. You dont know about my ability, or inability to decipher anything.

All you're doing is deflecting from answering a direct, and sincere question, before with the excuse "you wouldn't understand," now with the excuse "why would I," and "you wouldn't understand."

You do a lot of work deflecting, when you could simply meet the burden of proof in justifying your proclaimed belief in God.

My definition of God is irrelevant, you said you believe in "God," and the floor would be yours, at that point. Yet, you deflect.

I'll call it out each and every time, but the fact remains that you've been unable thus far to demonstrate a rational justification.

 

[hobelim]

I'll help you with how your logic is supposed to look.

You've said, "you can't find proof of God without understanding the teaching of said fairy tales and who or what the characters represent whether the talking serpent or God."

This means, your syllogism would go something like:

If the Bible means X, then this proves Y.
The Bible means X.
Therefore, Y.

It doesn't take a second interlocutor for you to present your case, that's a deflection.

Damn.. I am not trying to prove the existence of God. I am showing you that the fairy tales are teaching something that is not directly connected to the literal meanings of the words used.

Does this shock you?


You might as well be asking for me to prove that pigs can build houses and if I can't then the story about the three pigs is all hogwash even though it is not about pigs building houses.


You are looking for proof of a God that poofed the universe into existence even though the story of genesis is not about God poofing the universe into existence..


Its unfreakingbelievably stupid,.

Nope, I'm asking you to rationally justify YOUR professed belief in "whatever the fuck YOU think God means."

And to do so, you're deflecting to others. AS you just did, yet again.

Here's how I justify my non-belief, either way: No conclusive justification has been provided for, or against, any God.

The burden of proof, in a rational discussion, is on the interlocutor making the positive claim - in this case, that is you. You have not presented your case, you deflect into the meta and in this past post, deflected to what you "think" I'm looking for proof of.

All you have to do is ask. Here's what the specifics of the challenge are, to the one making positive claims: rationally justify YOUR professed belief in "whatever the fuck YOU think God means."

Or, deflect.

Why would I even try to rationally "justify" my beliefs about God which conform to and have been confirmed by reality decades ago to a person who doesn't even know what the fuck I mean and has demonstrated an inability to decipher complicated literary metaphors such as talking serpents aimed at teaching children realities about the world.


Thats why I told you, one step at a time. If you can't see talking serpents when they are trying to poison your mind how could you possible perceive evidence of the living God even if he smacked you upside the head and threw you into hell?


I don't have to justify my beliefs to anyone. Yes, I made an affirmative claim. Its up to you to do the things that brought me to an awareness and experience of the living God to see for yourself if its true or not.

If I make the claim that if you smoke a joint you will get high its up to you to see if its true or not. I can't prove it to you unless you try...

You just don't have the balls to take a hit, and thats the only thing being revealed. Something ugly lurking inside of you is exposing itself willy nilly

Deflection. You dont know about my ability, or inability to decipher anything.

All you're doing is deflecting from answering a direct, and sincere question, before with the excuse "you wouldn't understand," now with the excuse "why would I," and "you wouldn't understand."

You do a lot of work deflecting, when you could simply meet the burden of proof in justifying your proclaimed belief in God.

My definition of God is irrelevant, you said you believe in "God," and the floor would be yours, at that point. Yet, you deflect.

I'll call it out each and every time, but the fact remains that you've been unable thus far to demonstrate a rational justification.

No it is not a deflection, its a matter of fact. Unless you do what is necessary to prepare your mind to perceive the living God you won't perceive the living God no matter what I might say about my own experiences.

Which brings us back to the points from which you deflected.

If you do not understand what it written, what the fantastical stories are actually teaching, and see how it applies to actual reality, reality that even you have experienced first hand, you cannot possible perceive any evidence presented of that which cannot be seen with the eyes.

If you don't understand what was written you won't know what the stories are actually about, neither will you see any proof of their truth even if it was put right in front of you..

If you don't see any evidence of talking serpents exactly as described in great detail in the fairy tale even when they are right in front of you, how are you going to see what lies within?

Thats why I say, one step at a time. If you learn what the stories are actually teaching you will find evidence of the truth conveyed all around you, everywhere you look. If you don't understand what the stories are actually teaching you will look and look and look and wherever you look you will always find nothing.

 

[ding]

He's totally deflecting.

 

[G.T.]

I'll help you with how your logic is supposed to look.

You've said, "you can't find proof of God without understanding the teaching of said fairy tales and who or what the characters represent whether the talking serpent or God."

This means, your syllogism would go something like:

If the Bible means X, then this proves Y.
The Bible means X.
Therefore, Y.

It doesn't take a second interlocutor for you to present your case, that's a deflection.

Damn.. I am not trying to prove the existence of God. I am showing you that the fairy tales are teaching something that is not directly connected to the literal meanings of the words used.

Does this shock you?


You might as well be asking for me to prove that pigs can build houses and if I can't then the story about the three pigs is all hogwash even though it is not about pigs building houses.


You are looking for proof of a God that poofed the universe into existence even though the story of genesis is not about God poofing the universe into existence..


Its unfreakingbelievably stupid,.

Nope, I'm asking you to rationally justify YOUR professed belief in "whatever the fuck YOU think God means."

And to do so, you're deflecting to others. AS you just did, yet again.

Here's how I justify my non-belief, either way: No conclusive justification has been provided for, or against, any God.

The burden of proof, in a rational discussion, is on the interlocutor making the positive claim - in this case, that is you. You have not presented your case, you deflect into the meta and in this past post, deflected to what you "think" I'm looking for proof of.

All you have to do is ask. Here's what the specifics of the challenge are, to the one making positive claims: rationally justify YOUR professed belief in "whatever the fuck YOU think God means."

Or, deflect.

Why would I even try to rationally "justify" my beliefs about God which conform to and have been confirmed by reality decades ago to a person who doesn't even know what the fuck I mean and has demonstrated an inability to decipher complicated literary metaphors such as talking serpents aimed at teaching children realities about the world.


Thats why I told you, one step at a time. If you can't see talking serpents when they are trying to poison your mind how could you possible perceive evidence of the living God even if he smacked you upside the head and threw you into hell?


I don't have to justify my beliefs to anyone. Yes, I made an affirmative claim. Its up to you to do the things that brought me to an awareness and experience of the living God to see for yourself if its true or not.

If I make the claim that if you smoke a joint you will get high its up to you to see if its true or not. I can't prove it to you unless you try...

You just don't have the balls to take a hit, and thats the only thing being revealed. Something ugly lurking inside of you is exposing itself willy nilly

Deflection. You dont know about my ability, or inability to decipher anything.

All you're doing is deflecting from answering a direct, and sincere question, before with the excuse "you wouldn't understand," now with the excuse "why would I," and "you wouldn't understand."

You do a lot of work deflecting, when you could simply meet the burden of proof in justifying your proclaimed belief in God.

My definition of God is irrelevant, you said you believe in "God," and the floor would be yours, at that point. Yet, you deflect.

I'll call it out each and every time, but the fact remains that you've been unable thus far to demonstrate a rational justification.

No it is not a deflection, its a matter of fact. Unless you do what is necessary to prepare your mind to perceive the living God you won't perceive the living God no matter what I might say about my own experiences.

Which brings us back to the points from which you deflected.

If you do not understand what it written, what the fantastical stories are actually teaching, and see how it applies to actual reality, reality that even you have experienced first hand, you cannot possible perceive any evidence presented of that which cannot be see with the eyes.

If you don't understand what was written you don't won't know what the stories are actually about, neither will you see any proof of their truth even if it was put right in front of you..

If you don't see any evidence of talking serpents exactly as described in great detail in the fairy tale even when they are right in front of you, how are you going to see what lies within?

Thats why I say, one step at a time. If you learn what the stories are actually teaching you will find evidence of the truth conveyed all around you, everywhere you look. If you don't understand what the stories are actually teaching you will look and look and look and wherever you look you will always find nothing.

You're really good at passing the buck of responsibility off onto another because you're simply incapable of producing justification for your belief in the public square.

My case of your deflections has been proven, you don't have a justification that you can lay out and you certainly haven't begun to do so. That's fine - I'm just going to consider it unjustified until you do, if you don't mind.

 

[hobelim]

Damn.. I am not trying to prove the existence of God. I am showing you that the fairy tales are teaching something that is not directly connected to the literal meanings of the words used.

Does this shock you?


You might as well be asking for me to prove that pigs can build houses and if I can't then the story about the three pigs is all hogwash even though it is not about pigs building houses.


You are looking for proof of a God that poofed the universe into existence even though the story of genesis is not about God poofing the universe into existence..


Its unfreakingbelievably stupid,.

Nope, I'm asking you to rationally justify YOUR professed belief in "whatever the fuck YOU think God means."

And to do so, you're deflecting to others. AS you just did, yet again.

Here's how I justify my non-belief, either way: No conclusive justification has been provided for, or against, any God.

The burden of proof, in a rational discussion, is on the interlocutor making the positive claim - in this case, that is you. You have not presented your case, you deflect into the meta and in this past post, deflected to what you "think" I'm looking for proof of.

All you have to do is ask. Here's what the specifics of the challenge are, to the one making positive claims: rationally justify YOUR professed belief in "whatever the fuck YOU think God means."

Or, deflect.

Why would I even try to rationally "justify" my beliefs about God which conform to and have been confirmed by reality decades ago to a person who doesn't even know what the fuck I mean and has demonstrated an inability to decipher complicated literary metaphors such as talking serpents aimed at teaching children realities about the world.


Thats why I told you, one step at a time. If you can't see talking serpents when they are trying to poison your mind how could you possible perceive evidence of the living God even if he smacked you upside the head and threw you into hell?


I don't have to justify my beliefs to anyone. Yes, I made an affirmative claim. Its up to you to do the things that brought me to an awareness and experience of the living God to see for yourself if its true or not.

If I make the claim that if you smoke a joint you will get high its up to you to see if its true or not. I can't prove it to you unless you try...

You just don't have the balls to take a hit, and thats the only thing being revealed. Something ugly lurking inside of you is exposing itself willy nilly

Deflection. You dont know about my ability, or inability to decipher anything.

All you're doing is deflecting from answering a direct, and sincere question, before with the excuse "you wouldn't understand," now with the excuse "why would I," and "you wouldn't understand."

You do a lot of work deflecting, when you could simply meet the burden of proof in justifying your proclaimed belief in God.

My definition of God is irrelevant, you said you believe in "God," and the floor would be yours, at that point. Yet, you deflect.

I'll call it out each and every time, but the fact remains that you've been unable thus far to demonstrate a rational justification.

No it is not a deflection, its a matter of fact. Unless you do what is necessary to prepare your mind to perceive the living God you won't perceive the living God no matter what I might say about my own experiences.

Which brings us back to the points from which you deflected.

If you do not understand what it written, what the fantastical stories are actually teaching, and see how it applies to actual reality, reality that even you have experienced first hand, you cannot possible perceive any evidence presented of that which cannot be see with the eyes.

If you don't understand what was written you don't won't know what the stories are actually about, neither will you see any proof of their truth even if it was put right in front of you..

If you don't see any evidence of talking serpents exactly as described in great detail in the fairy tale even when they are right in front of you, how are you going to see what lies within?

Thats why I say, one step at a time. If you learn what the stories are actually teaching you will find evidence of the truth conveyed all around you, everywhere you look. If you don't understand what the stories are actually teaching you will look and look and look and wherever you look you will always find nothing.

You're really good at passing the buck of responsibility off onto another because you're simply incapable of producing justification for your belief in the public square.

My case of your deflections has been proven, you don't have a justification that you can lay out and you certainly haven't begun to do so. That's fine - I'm just going to consider it unjustified until you do, if you don't mind.

Passing the buck of responsibility? thats hilarious.

You are the one supposedly seeking evidence of a God, not me.....

If you won't apply your mind to understand and conform to the codified instructions about how one goes about finding God what do you expect me to do for you aside from what I have already done in pointing you in the right direction, making clear the way to follow that leads to the fulfillment of that search?

Trying to find fault in me for failing to do what only you can do for yourself doesn't conceal your dishonesty and cowardice.

And as it is written. "No one whose balls have been crushed can become a member of the assembly of the Lord."

cry about it all you like, ITS THE LAW.