Originally posted by @romans1009That's because most of it is quoting you. 🙄
Believe it or not, my post was addressed to a broader audience than you.
I understand why you have trouble comprehending it, though. Your second paragraph in particular is a illogical word salad.
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeActually, most of it is your response to what I posted, and the big mistake you made was in assuming I was writing to you.
That's because most of it is quoting you. 🙄
Originally posted by @romans1009The point is that apathist made an opening remark of a very general nature ("not seeing gods" ), and you, among others, immediately interpret it in a narrowly Christian context, capitalizing "God" and talking about the incarnation of 2,000 years ago as if that were the only epiphany that was ever reported. The pagan traditions are full of epiphanies, thousands of years older than the Christian incarnation-story.
I’d hate to think the OP is that limited. What’s the point, then?
People have seen gods for tens of thousands of years, in every culture and on every continent. People have seen gods in rivers and stags and lightning storms and burning bushes and eclipses and dreams and goats' entrails for as long as history records anything at all. Doesn't that strike you? It apparently strikes apathist, who does not see gods anywhere, and so he wonders, 'is there something wrong with me (if I don't see what so many others seem to)?' It's an entirely fair question.
It is a question of seeing, so your statement that 'A deity has been seen, God is a Spirit who came to Earth 2,000 years ago' doesn't address the question whether there is something wrong with apathist that he doesn't see it that way. No more so than the claim that Rigvedic gods or Ahura Madza or Quetzalcoatl came to Earth would answer the question, why some people don't see it that way.
At least two good solid answers have been offered in the discussion so far: a) "there's nothing wrong with you (if you don't see gods)," and b) "a man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest."
Originally posted by @moonbusAppreciate the elaboration.
The point is that apathist made an opening remark of a very general nature ("not seeing gods" ), and you, among others, immediately interpret it in a narrowly Christian context, capitalizing "God" and talking about the incarnation of 2,000 years ago as if that were the only epiphany that was ever reported. The pagan traditions are full of epiphanies, thousa ...[text shortened]... you (if you don't see gods)," and b) "a man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest."
This is the paragraph that post was in reply to:
Apathist says he does not see gods. There is no contesting that statement. It's not a statement about God; it's a statement about what he sees or does not see. One might as well contest the statement that he does not see Mt. Everest or does not have a belly ache. It is no rebuttal to say, "But Everest really exists and is not defined by human beings" or "belly aches really exist."
<<People have seen gods for tens of thousands of years, in every culture and on every continent. People have seen gods in rivers and stags and lightning storms and burning bushes and eclipses and dreams and goats' entrails for as long as history records anything at all. Doesn't that strike you?>>
To be honest, it strikes me as nonsense. You’re identifying all the apparitions or phenomena (for lack of better words) these people saw throughout history as gods?
On what basis? Their say-so?
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeYou can get some truth from him.
I think Rajk posts the truth.
You cool with that?
You'll probably have to do some sifting eventually to separate it from errors.
You cool with that?
Originally posted by @moonbusit does however show some aspects of God
You don't see your own brain either, for that matter. Doesn't prove doodly squat.
Originally posted by @sonshipyou should live it bro. it'll change your life for the better
Don't worry about who was addressed and who wasn't. I benefited from the [b]truth being written. Others did I too, I think.[/b]
Originally posted by @sonshipThats all I ever say . the truth. but do you have ears to hear?
I don't get some of you guys. I really don't.
All you should care about is the [b]TRUTH !
Let everyone be a fink as long as you get what is TRUE.[/b]
Originally posted by @romans1009wider audience? you mean sonship and suzianne? psst: they dont give a rats arse about you.
Believe it or not, my post was addressed to a broader audience than you.
I understand why you have trouble comprehending it, though. Your second paragraph in particular was an illogical word salad.
Originally posted by @karoly-aczelWider audience meaning participants and readers of the thread. I didn’t think that required an explanation.
wider audience? you mean sonship and suzianne? psst: they dont give a rats arse about you.
Originally posted by @karoly-aczelDo you?
Thats all I ever say . the truth. but do you have ears to hear?
“Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”
(John 14:6)
1 edit
Originally posted by @romans1009Hallelujah!! His way was exempalary and beyond scope. Perfect , one may say, but I'm not comparing my life to his, I'm living my own life.
Do you?
“Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”
(John 14:6)
Originally posted by @karoly-aczelSo am I. I know better than to compare my life to His and it’s really pointless to compare one’s life to anybody else’s. No good comes if it, which is why I think coveting is a sin
Hallelujah!! His way was exempalary and beyond scope. Perfect , one may say, but I'm not comparing my life to his, I'm living my own life.