The basic query in the OP is: could the revelation of the Christian God possibly have been more effective in convincing people of His existence if it'd been carried out in a different way; if so, how?
leunammi, SecondSon, Suzianne, sonship, Tom Wolsey...
Do you think it would be "sinful" to engage in speculation of the kind canvassed by the OP?
Originally posted by @fmfShould I repeat my answer endlessly, following you around multiple threads, until, finally, you are forced to actually address my answer instead of slathering it with your overly colorful, insulting language that has nothing to do with my answer? Yet another thread topic that you are now using to criminalize one poster that you don't like, one poster who has rightfully taken you to task for your own shady forum behavior, one poster who has demonstrated that they disagree with you, and so now you are on this warpath to overwhelm this forum with your poster-hatred, again, just for his disagreeing with you.
It would seem that this OP has happened upon yet another thread topic that you find yourself unable to address and which you treat as an opportunity to make off-topic nothing-to-do-with-the-thread remarks instead. Fancy that.
Are you willing to engage this OP's invitation?
This is exactly the same behavior you have shown against Grampy Bobby, and then djbecker, and then josephw, and then Romans. Only one of these posters continues to post here and he, only occasionally. Is this your plan, your raison d'etre? To harass posters relentlessly, with barely credible, barely civil, barely believable behavior whose only purpose is to drive them from the forum?
Again, the day cannot come too soon that you are here in this forum, alone with your cronies, your hangers-on, your toadies who praise your name while piling on with your condemnation of one poster who is your flavor-of-the-month because he had the bad taste to stand against you, posting your own eerily narcissistic, masturbatory diatribes against any who displease you.
Who will you aim your bile at then? Perhaps we won't have to witness that final collapse because this forum will have long since gone the way of those you've harassed in the past and just faded away into the obscurity you so richly deserve.
Originally posted by @suzianneI completely disagree with your characterization of my contribution to this community. People can read what you have written and make of it what you will.
Should I repeat my answer endlessly, following you around multiple threads, until, finally, you are forced to actually address my answer instead of slathering it with your overly colorful, insulting language that has nothing to do with my answer? Yet another thread topic that you are now using to criminalize one poster that you don't like, one poster who ...[text shortened]... those you've harassed in the past and just faded away into the obscurity you so richly deserve.
Originally posted by @suzianneRomans was reviled by most people in this forum and was a 'pestilence' with his thread spamming and creepy stalking. (We 'both' pulled him up on this).
This is exactly the same behavior you have shown against Grampy Bobby, and then djbecker, and then josephw, and then Romans. Only one of these posters continues to post here and he, only occasionally. Is this your plan, your raison d'etre? To harass posters relentlessly, with barely credible, barely civil, barely believable behavior whose only purpose is ...[text shortened]... those you've harassed in the past and just faded away into the obscurity you so richly deserve.[/b]
Please, let's never go into that dark place of making him out to be an innocent victim of harassment, even if it is to take a jab at FMF.
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke to SuzianneHer post on the previous page reminds me of that ludicrous PM message she sent me that she asked HandyAndy to post for all to see on the General Forum.
Please, let's never go into that dark place of making him out to be an innocent victim of harassment, even if it is to take a jab at FMF.
1 edit
Originally posted by @fmfI believe the revelation did exactly what God intended. It doesn't make any sense to speculate on whether God could have been more effective when He achieved what He set out to achieve. To judge whether He could have done better is to concede that He could have done better, and to declare Him and His efforts a failure. I'm not going to do that. Why would I, even if just to suppose? I guess I could speculate on the difference it would make if the sky is pink. But why? It's pointless. To me at least.
The basic query in the OP is: could the revelation of the Christian God possibly have been more effective in convincing people of His existence if it'd been carried out in a different way; if so, how?
leunammi, SecondSon, Suzianne, sonship, Tom Wolsey...
Do you think it would be "sinful" to engage in speculation of the kind canvassed by the OP?
Originally posted by @tom-wolseyI'm a non-believer, so to me the stuff you're talking about is merely a combination of mythology and mundane ideology. This means there's no reason to refrain from questioning it and speculating about it as one might about any phenomenon born of psychological and anthropological factors.
I believe the revelation did exactly what God intended. It doesn't make any sense to speculate on whether God could have been more effective when He achieved what He set out to achieve. To judge whether He could have done better is to concede that He could have done better, and to declare Him and His efforts a failure. I'm not going to do that. ...[text shortened]... on the difference it would make if the sky is pink. But why? It's pointless. To me at least.
Originally posted by @fmfAs a non-believer I expect you to question things. But that's different from insisting that select others participate in your mental exercise, especially when as a premise they must reject something they already firmly believe.
I'm a non-believer, so to me the stuff you're talking about is merely a combination of mythology and mundane ideology. This means there's no reason to refrain from questioning it and speculating about it as one might about any phenomenon born of psychological and anthropological factors.