God does not want our love. God wishes only to serve man.

[methamaniac]

^
I find some of your gnostic propaganda amusing. But your religion is not gaining(by gaining I really mean losing) any soul here.

Sorry the God you have constructed can not be complex. Sounds like this entity is pretty one- dimensional.
Steiner's problem was he belived he was a phophet to save mankind, excluding Jesus.
Sounds like someone else I know.
It doesnt take some mystical "gnostic" revelation to know God, just an open heart.
This is what science doesnt understand/cant explain.
(prehaps what you dont understand).

When I accepted God into my heart my bible knowledge was very small. Now it is much bigger. God hasnt changed, I have.
I've enjoyed getting to know him.

 

[methamaniac]

Freud called it our Father Complex.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father_complex

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJ1PDxeUynA

Regards
DL

Freud was good at anyalsis but he like so many others took it too far.
He belived that if something was expressed in one,
It must be taking place in all. Flawed logic, and doesnt take into consideration we were created to be an individual. Not robots.
Yes, we all posses some universal qualities, such as we all have a measure of faith, can think, feel, etc. But that doesnt mean we are the same.
Its a slippery slope that Freud loved to ski down.
Just because he wanted to sleep with his mother,
doesnt mean we all do. Just because he had homosexual tendencies doesnt mean everybody does. Just because one person enjoys raping children, doesnt mean everyone secretly/deep down enjoys raping children. Just because one person is afraid of love doesnt mean everyone is afraid of love.....see where Im going.
"Because "this" may be true for one " doesnt make "this" true for all
Statement of "apples are sweet" doesnt necessarily mean "all apples are sweet" .
Tomatoes taste good. Tomatoes taste bad.
It perspective that makes each statement true.
Its an individual anylasis.

I would suggest you stop looking at humans as robots.
You're attempting to shrink God so you can stick him in your front pocket.

 

[Joeof1]

^^
err...You dont have to trust me.
If you dont trust your senses you're going to have to trust something/somebody eventually....
or I'd imagine you'd never get off the "couch"

Says the guy trying to validate his thoughts on BL....

Trust is for children, and it should only be in the abilities of their parent's to protect them.

 

[methamaniac]

Says the guy trying to validate his thoughts on BL....

Trust is for children, and it should only be in the abilities of their parent's to protect them.

I would say sharing his thoughts....
But if I go with your diagnosis,
Where does that leave you?
The guy trying to get his thoughts validated by the guy trying to validate his thoughts?
Looks like you really thought that one out.

At least I can trust my thoughts,
and dont have to live on a pretend island by myself while running from myself.

 

[Gnostic Bishop]

^
I find some of your gnostic propaganda amusing. But your religion is not gaining(by gaining I really mean losing) any soul here.

Sorry the God you have constructed can not be complex. Sounds like this entity is pretty one- dimensional.
Steiner's problem was he belived he was a phophet to save mankind, excluding Jesus.
Sounds like someone else I know.
It doesnt take some mystical "gnostic" revelation to know God, just an open heart.
This is what science doesnt understand/cant explain.
(prehaps what you dont understand).

When I accepted God into my heart my bible knowledge was very small. Now it is much bigger. God hasnt changed, I have.
I've enjoyed getting to know him.

Yes. It is always nice to get to know a genocidal son murdering God.

It shows you who Satan is.

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Bishop]

Freud was good at anyalsis but he like so many others took it too far.
He belived that if something was expressed in one,
It must be taking place in all. Flawed logic, and doesnt take into consideration we were created to be an individual. Not robots.
Yes, we all posses some universal qualities, such as we all have a measure of faith, can think, feel, etc. But that doesnt mean we are the same.
Its a slippery slope that Freud loved to ski down.
Just because he wanted to sleep with his mother,
doesnt mean we all do. Just because he had homosexual tendencies doesnt mean everybody does. Just because one person enjoys raping children, doesnt mean everyone secretly/deep down enjoys raping children. Just because one person is afraid of love doesnt mean everyone is afraid of love.....see where Im going.
"Because "this" may be true for one " doesnt make "this" true for all
Statement of "apples are sweet" doesnt necessarily mean "all apples are sweet" .
Tomatoes taste good. Tomatoes taste bad.
It perspective that makes each statement true.
Its an individual anylasis.

I would suggest you stop looking at humans as robots.
You're attempting to shrink God so you can stick him in your front pocket.

Ya ya. Tomatoes.

Regards
DL

 

[Joeof1]

I would say sharing his thoughts....
But if I go with your diagnosis,
Where does that leave you?
The guy trying to get his thoughts validated by the guy trying to validate his thoughts?
Looks like you really thought that one out.

I hadn't questioned it because I wasn't validating my thoughts. I was countering yours to provide validation or invalidation. That's how debates work.

My thoughts on the matter are irrelevant, just as it is apparent that you think I have something vested in the conversation for anything other than the arguments sake.

At least I can trust my thoughts,
and dont have to live on a pretend island by myself while running from myself.

I can't even trust your thoughts, because you presume a person would isolate themselves to get away from themselves, when it's obvious that they are attempting to get away from everyone NOT themselves. You don't seek isolation to do anything but to find yourself.

You're so screwed up by your dialectic based indoctrination that you're confused on what is reality and what is not. You should unlearn that trusting in your senses, because it's got you believing in fantastical notions and delusions.

You're not getting how this works yet.

 

[methamaniac]

I hadn't questioned it because I wasn't validating my thoughts. I was countering yours to provide validation or invalidation. That's how debates work.

My thoughts on the matter are irrelevant, just as it is apparent that you think I have something vested in the conversation for anything other than the arguments sake.



I can't even trust your thoughts, because you presume a person would isolate themselves to get away from themselves, when it's obvious that they are attempting to get away from everyone NOT themselves. You don't seek isolation to do anything but to find yourself.

You're so screwed up by your dialectic based indoctrination that you're confused on what is reality and what is not. You should unlearn that trusting in your senses, because it's got you believing in fantastical notions and delusions.

You're not getting how this works yet.

FIRST,
Im "validating"and your "debating"?
Actually sounds like you're "playing"
-- a game of semantics

Second,
You said your " thoughts are irrelevant"?
Then why share them?

Third,
Nothing vested " other than arguements sake"?
You're arguing just to argue?
Things starting to become clear.

Fourth,
"You cant trust my thoughts"?
Nobody asked you to--
I dont expect you to, you admittingly dont even trust your own thoughts

Fifth,
"Attempting to get away from everyone not themselves?
If you dont trust yourself, dont matter where you
isolate yourself to--your still there!
The problem is too.

SIXTH,
"You dont seek isolation to do anything but find yourself"?
If you dont have a sense of what you're looking for,
how you going to know when you find it?

Seventh,
Im "confused on what reality is and is not"?
You want me to "unlearn" trusting my senses?
How the hell do I determine up from down without trusting my senses?

Finally,
Im not "getting how this works yet"?
How does "this" work?
Your implying you have the answer.

Thanks for the reply---um I mean exam, Doc.

 

[Tromps]

Trust is for children, and it should only be in the abilities of their parent's to protect them.

What? I haven't read all of the posts in here only skimmed through... but really, trust is only for children and should only be in "the abilities of their parents to protect them," seriously?

Trust is far beyond just for children. Any reasonable person with life experience would know that. You may have some learning to do yet. -.-

Anyhow, Peace to you

 

[Joeof1]

FIRST,
Im "validating"and your "debating"?
Actually sounds like you're "playing"
-- a game of semantics

To the uninitiated, yes it would seem so. To the other Devil's Advocates, no.

Second,
You said your " thoughts are irrelevant"?
Then why share them?

These are not my thoughts, they are logical responses to your argument.

Third,
Nothing vested " other than arguements sake"?
You're arguing just to argue?
Things starting to become clear.

Would you rather debate a person that does nothing but agree with you?

Fourth,
"You cant trust my thoughts"?
Nobody asked you to--
I dont expect you to, you admittingly dont even trust your own thoughts

I verify my thoughts before I let them go anywhere.

Fifth,
"Attempting to get away from everyone not themselves?
If you dont trust yourself, dont matter where you
isolate yourself to--your still there!
The problem is too.

Nope, because I wouldn't be the problem if I were trying to isolate myself. What you are describing is a fallacy, it can not exist rationally without lying to yourself about it. So you are lying when you declare yourself the problem.

SIXTH,
"You dont seek isolation to do anything but find yourself"?
If you dont have a sense of what you're looking for,
how you going to know when you find it?

Seems to me that would be something you would simply understand the moment you find it. I know when I found myself I knew who I was instantly.

Seventh,
Im "confused on what reality is and is not"?
You want me to "unlearn" trusting my senses?
How the hell do I determine up from down without trusting my senses?

You're at the bottom of a gravity well. Everything is up.

Finally,
Im not "getting how this works yet"?
How does "this" work?
Your implying you have the answer.

Answer for what? We haven't even established what the clear question is.

Thanks for the reply---um I mean exam, Doc.

Not a doctor, yet.

What? I haven't read all of the posts in here only skimmed through... but really, trust is only for children and should only be in "the abilities of their parents to protect them," seriously?

Trust is far beyond just for children. Any reasonable person with life experience would know that. You may have some learning to do yet. -.-

Anyhow, Peace to you

Are you sure, because you can't even trust that your circumstances in life were more significant than my own. You can assume and presume as much, but that doesn't denote trust.

 

[methamaniac]

Level 3
Pointing out semantics - doulbe
logical fallacies- triple

1. They're not your "thoughts"?
Who's "thoughts" are you using then?

2. You're giving "logical responses"?
How do you determine whats logical without thinking.....oh yeah you're not thinking.
I have just answered point 1. for you
--they'e not even thoughts at all--
they're random words with great hopes of forming an idea-
-an idea that dreams of evolving into a thought someday.

3. Would I rather "debate a person who agrees with me"?
Well honestly, I would rather someone point how
I am right, than to argue that why I am RIGHT,
Im still wrong.
(My intention is not validation---Its for you to learn something. The reward is yours)

4. You "verify"your thoughts before you "let them go anywhere"?
There not even your "thoughts" remember...
You need premission from someone else before
they begin to go anywhere.
By the way, Exactly how do you "verify" thoughts without thinking?

5. "You're lying when you declare yourself the problem".
Ok, but if you keep trying to stuff that square peg in a round hole and it doesnt fit -good luck blaming the hole for YOUR inability to see logic.

6. "Bottom of a gravity well"?
Well Alice, since you're living in wonderland
Id imagine up is down- down is up -left is right -and right is wrong.....
to the hopelessly confused I'm betting everything is a bit confusing.

7.. "I knew when I found myself I knew who I was instantly"
Sounds like a long strange trip, Jerry.
Im starting to see how you got lost to begin with.

8. "We havent even established what the clear question is" ?
Then what the heck am I not "getting" about a question that doesnt exist?
When you decide what I need to "get" let me know.

9. "Not a doctor yet".
You're not even doing a good job of playing
one on the internet.

10. Thou shalt not commit fallacies.

( all apologies to OP for thread derailment
Im just circling the wagons)

 

[Gnostic Bishop]

What? I haven't read all of the posts in here only skimmed through... but really, trust is only for children and should only be in "the abilities of their parents to protect them," seriously?

Trust is far beyond just for children. Any reasonable person with life experience would know that. You may have some learning to do yet. -.-

Anyhow, Peace to you

Agreed.

If we did not trust those on the road to do as expected, none would dare drive around or leave their homes.

Regards
DL