Merged A God of Love / The Living God

[Beady]

No lack of evidence for me. I went from being a woo-denier to an almost-full believer.

It is not easy to prove because it is not governed by the laws of physics but by an intelligence who avoids scientific proof. Sooo frustrating for those who do not get the personal proof they want.

(Apologies if this is a derail. I do think it's a pertinent digression.)

You've got it backwards. You are the one who accepts "personal proof." The rest of us want objective, not personal (more commonly called "subjective") evidence.

From the Urban Dictionary:

woo woo

Unfounded or ludicrouse beliefs

Belief in talking to the dead, belief in telikenesis, in fact any belief not founded on good evidence, the poorer the evidence the more Woo Woo the belief.

by*Russell*January 14, 2003

The term "woo denier," as evidenced by your usage, and especially by your quoted statement, appears to be a rejection and ridicule of objective evidence and a glorification of objectively unfounded and poor evidence. It also seems to indicate that, in your world, the more personal, unfounded and poorer the evidence, the better.

Mental health professionals apply entirely objective judgements to people who conduct their daily lives according to varying amounts of unfounded and poor "personal evidence." The more a person under observation conducts themselves according to "personal proof" to the exclusion of objectivity, the more likely they are to be segregated from society to some degree, and the more "personal" the "proof" the greater the segregation.

However, you appear to believe this is wrong since, in your view, people who accept "personal evidence" have a more accurate appreciation of reality than do people who rely on objectivity. I wonder, then, where you would draw the line, assuming you would draw it at all, and what criteria you would apply. And how would you apply criteria to subjectivity that wasn't completely objective?

This signature is intended to irritate people.

 

[Johanabrahams]

The only "more" we know is that you have nothing at all to teach beyond the scale of your ego and that you are some form of transgender. Not particularly useful.

The only one that wasted his time was you trying to get somebody to tell us why they are correct. But you did learn something in this also. You learned about the futility of "gossip". "Evidence" of my lies are important and the witnesses are there. Is that the best that you could do. Only found someone scared to death to speak against a "whatever".

What you have self described is not love and your god did not die in any meaningful sense. At worst, he was temporarily inconvenienced for a weekend. Unless you are going to claim there was no resurrection.

Said someone that does not know anything about this God. I do not believe that a torture till the human body dies is "an inconvenienced weekend".

All we have from you are vague assertions of incoherent ideas with nothing to back them up at all.

The only one that "has nothing to back them up" is you and your "gossip" trip.

So do you not think you will do yourself a favor if you try and understand why someone will not speak up when he is invited by everyone to reveal something "bad" that is "hidden". That somebody has the whole of Robertson behind him. He also has me behind him. Not speaking behind my back but to me. What you and him did by speaking about me was in the wrong. You should speak to me. So what is keeping him or them from doing the right thing? The believe they are those doing the right thing. Yet they keep themselves busy with the wrong thing.

I mean I am very "bad". So that has to be said. No matter the consequences. And it will not suffice to just say I am "bad". There needs to be evidence. And now the witnesses who have seen and is still seeing the "bad" are hiding away. This is really "bad". Especially after they said I am "bad" and now not coming here to proof it. Making my name "bad". Sending you here to bring their message. I am "bad". Do you not see that that is bad. And do you not see that you are part of it now? Doing "bad" things.

Are you really that blind?

Do you really not see your "secret baloney".

So we can go further. This "bad" is now here. Speaking about the same "bad" that he is living out there. Spreading the "bad" everywhere. That is really "bad". And you knowing about the "bad" is now also hiding the "bad". And everybody wants you to reveal the "bad" because nobody sees it. Only you and them. And you made a pact there to never speak about the "bad". It just has to go on and on and on. No solution for the "bad". Those with the knowledge are just in pact to hide it away.

Seems to me that you and Robertson are doomed. To just be part of "bad" always. And then you tell all these people. I am "bad". No evidence. Have a pact not to say anything. So everyone now is in fear. Of me. But looking at you we see no fear in you. So you and your message are opposing each other. Now all these poor people here what should they now believe. Your actions or your words. Do you want to take them also on "your gossip train"?

"secret baloney"

 

[Beady]

I accept that they met with God. All in their own way...They met with deity. Yep. They can not be all mad.

100,000 lemmings can't all be wrong.

This signature is intended to irritate people.

 

[abaddon]

The only one that wasted his time was you trying to get somebody to tell us why they are correct. But you did learn something in this also. You learned about the futility of "gossip". "Evidence" of my lies are important and the witnesses are there. Is that the best that you could do. Only found someone scared to death to speak against a "whatever".



Said someone that does not know anything about this God. I do not believe that a torture till the human body dies is "an inconvenienced weekend".



The only one that "has nothing to back them up" is you and your "gossip" trip.

So do you not think you will do yourself a favor if you try and understand why someone will not speak up when he is invited by everyone to reveal something "bad" that is "hidden". That somebody has the whole of Robertson behind him. He also has me behind him. Not speaking behind my back but to me. What you and him did by speaking about me was in the wrong. You should speak to me. So what is keeping him or them from doing the right thing? The believe they are those doing the right thing. Yet they keep themselves busy with the wrong thing.

I mean I am very "bad". So that has to be said. No matter the consequences. And it will not suffice to just say I am "bad". There needs to be evidence. And now the witnesses who have seen and is still seeing the "bad" are hiding away. This is really "bad". Especially after they said I am "bad" and now not coming here to proof it. Making my name "bad". Sending you here to bring their message. I am "bad". Do you not see that that is bad. And do you not see that you are part of it now? Doing "bad" things.

Are you really that blind?

Do you really not see your "secret baloney".

So we can go further. This "bad" is now here. Speaking about the same "bad" that he is living out there. Spreading the "bad" everywhere. That is really "bad". And you knowing about the "bad" is now also hiding the "bad". And everybody wants you to reveal the "bad" because nobody sees it. Only you and them. And you made a pact there to never speak about the "bad". It just has to go on and on and on. No solution for the "bad". Those with the knowledge are just in pact to hide it away.

Seems to me that you and Robertson are doomed. To just be part of "bad" always. And then you tell all these people. I am "bad". No evidence. Have a pact not to say anything. So everyone now is in fear. Of me. But looking at you we see no fear in you. So you and your message are opposing each other. Now all these poor people here what should they now believe. Your actions or your words. Do you want to take them also on "your gossip train"?

"secret baloney"

Close to the mark indeed.

I have satisfied myself as to the veracity of what I have been told. The mods have ruled discussion of same to be off topic so I suggest you drop it.

Nobody here is "in fear of you". What is there to fear? My actions are simply those of a skeptic. Take the time to determine the facts. I did. End of story.

 

[Johanabrahams]

Your words, not ours...

Well do you see anything else?

Finding inner peace and doing things for others aren't madness no.

I already had those while I was still a reverend. I gave that up for something much bigger.

But all the things we can no longer discuss in this thread because they transgress both the MA and basic human decency might be symptoms of something other than sanity.

Basic human decency is to speak together. I do not think MA is against that. We are already speaking together. Only problem according to me was the absence of everybody. But now inviting them in and having a family chat can not be wrong now even according to MA.

 

[Johanabrahams]

In other words, you have no evidence.

In other words you missed it.

 

[Porpoise of Life]

Well do you see anything else?




I already had those while I was still a reverend. I gave that up for something much bigger.



Basic human decency is to speak together. I do not think MA is against that. We are already speaking together. Only problem according to me was the absence of everybody. But now inviting them in and having a family chat can not be wrong now even according to MA.

Let's go point by point, because your replies appear to veer off into the same old stuff every time...

You said you wanted to teach us things.
You never say what these lessons are.
The only thing you do keep doing is assert that you are special. (You claim to be God, you claim to be the bride of God, you claim to be the Son of God, you claim to be our mother)
Every time people ask you what this means you do not answer the question, you just repeat your assertions and pretend it's 'wisdom'.
Every time people ask you what lessons you have to teach, you repeat your claims of divinity without answering the question.
Sometimes you veer off angrily into talking about your various feuds with your neighbours, ex-wife, 'spiritual' rivals and casual acquaintances. All unprompted.
You then return to claiming you have superhuman amounts of love and whatever to give. Love you always describe, but never demonstrate.

Now, where does this lead us?
You clearly have no interest in a discussion.
You have no interest in teaching those lessons you go on about.
You have constructed the persona of some kind of generous forgiving loving god-man.
However, everything you post indicated this is a very thin veil over a lot of anger, resentment, and perhaps even paranoia (you keep claiming everyone is out to destroy you when the mask slips).

My conclusion?
If this fake persona you've created helps you cope with life, who am I to tell you to stop?
I can't advise you to get professional help.
I'm not interested in feeding your delusions.
I am (perhaps morbidly) curious to see where this thread is going.

 

[Hokulele]

Basic human decency is to speak together. I do not think MA is against that. We are already speaking together. Only problem according to me was the absence of everybody. But now inviting them in and having a family chat can not be wrong now even according to MA.

If those people do not want any contact with you, because of your treatment of them, then yes, inviting them here where they would be forced to interact with you would be terribly wrong. The fact that you cannot let go of the past and move on is more than enough evidence for me that your brand of religion does not give peace to an individual, and that your interpretation of love is twisted.

Love is about wanting others to be happy on their own terms, not forcing others to make you happy on your terms.

 

[Donn]

We are together in the existence of God. We met Him. And so are all the Christians.

There you go, PartSkeptic, you are counted among the flock. Isn't that nice?

 

[PartSkeptic]

Of course you couldn't use that once it had already be mentioned...

(snip)

Actually no. I had already thought of it half a day ahead of you, and you provided an opening.

I am ahead of you. Must be that psychic future-see ability of mine.

 

[PartSkeptic]

(snip)
Now you've moved the goalposts from 'doing great deeds that prove there's a God' to 'preaching nice stuff'.

You are avoiding the proposition I posed, namely:

The most intelligent and advanced culture on the planet are God-believers.

Why is this? How does "evolutionary selection" bring this about?

 

[Donn]

And where did this idea come from?

The idea box of bone.

In Christianity you can only be one [a believer] if you have a personal witness. That means you have to witness about your specific encounter with God. There is no such thing as "inherited conviction from authority" Even here I see no such thing. Every one of us stressed a personal meeting.

— [italics added by me for clarity]

Witnessing is about selling your faith to others. Each believer comes to their faith by trusting acceptance of some prior witness. This chain of trust only shows that humans like to imitate and mirror one another.

This is not rocket surgery.

Yep in your mind. Where faith is the result of the deceit of the "authority"

I did not mention deceit, you read that in. I say that faith is a culture and spreads among minds. It requires no direct correlation to what is real; only ignorance that it's fiction.

 

[PartSkeptic]

(Apologies if this is a derail. I do think it's a pertinent digression.)

You've got it backwards. You are the one who accepts "personal proof." The rest of us want objective, not personal (more commonly called "subjective") evidence.

(snip)

It is relevant. Believers trust their inner senses. Non-believers want scientific proof - even when science itself accepts that they cannot apply scientific proof to many questions that people want answers to.

I saw an clear example of ball-lightning in the early sixties. It is only recently that the phenomenon is accepted as rare but possible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ball_lightning

Ball lightning is an unexplained atmospheric electrical phenomenon. The term refers to reports of luminous, spherical objects that vary from pea-sized to several meters in diameter...

Until the 1960s, most scientists treated reports of ball lightning skeptically, despite numerous accounts from around the world. Laboratory experiments can produce effects that are visually similar to reports of ball lightning, but how these relate to the natural phenomenon remains unclear.

Scientists have proposed many hypotheses about ball lightning over the centuries. Scientific data on natural ball lightning are scarce, owing to its infrequency and unpredictability.

So tell me - was I delusional to claim I know what I saw? Could I prove it or even repeat it. Of course not.

If you clearly plainly saw something that defies accepted physics, what would you believe. Your own experience, or scientists?

My point (again) is that skeptics NEED a limited definition of reality to substantiate their belief that the supernatural is impossible.

BTW - Based on what I saw, my own hypothesis of ball lightning is that there is a ball of particles in the air that gets charged and gives off a corona discharge glow.

 

[Donn]

Judaism was the among the first to promote a belief in a monotheistic god. They got their laws from that God through their prophets.

God because prophets because God. It's a nice ouroboros, but doesn't follow — when you look at it.

 

[PartSkeptic]

There you go, PartSkeptic, you are counted among the flock. Isn't that nice?

Yes.

You want to join? Lots of benefits.

 

[PartSkeptic]

God because prophets because God. It's a nice ouroboros, but doesn't follow — when you look at it.

You too are avoiding the proposition I posed, namely:

The most intelligent and advanced culture on the planet are God-believers.

Why is this? How does "evolutionary selection" bring this about?

Is everyone going to avoid this question?

 

[Hokulele]

You are avoiding the proposition I posed, namely:

The most intelligent and advanced culture on the planet are God-believers.

Why is this? How does "evolutionary selection" bring this about?

Evolutionary selection works on species, not cultures.

And just curious, which specifically is the "most intelligent and advanced" culture, in your opinion?

 

[abaddon]

You too are avoiding the proposition I posed, namely:

The most intelligent and advanced culture on the planet are God-believers.

Why is this? How does "evolutionary selection" bring this about?

Is everyone going to avoid this question?

Wow. There is such a thing as a stupid question.

It's simple. No religion has existed for long enough for any noticeable evolution to have taken place at all.

 

[abaddon]

Yes.

You want to join? Lots of benefits.

No thanks. The downside of ceasing to think for oneself would bother me.

 

[Donn]

Yes.

You want to join? Lots of benefits.

Join the Christians (thanks, but no thanks) you deny being one of? Tricksy.