30 Apr 14
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyWell either effective communication has just failed once again, or you you intended that to come across as rude (because that is how it was received).
For effective communication to occur both sender and receiver of the content of the message have a responsibility: sender to encode the words with clarity and receiver to decode them with objectivity. Both must have a shared frame of reference.
30 Apr 14
To: twhitehead and googlefudge
The Bad News: You've both determined that my scrawl is unintelligible. The Good News: It apparently doesn't matter much since I have nothing to say worthy of your eyes or ears. Imagine the grief there would be if Grampy Bobby was an atheist?
Footnote: I take no pleasure at all in having made and communicated these observations; there's so very much at stake.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
30 Apr 14
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyWell given that it is entirely within your power to change how you communicate to
To: twhitehead and googlefudge
The Bad News: You've both determined that my scrawl is unintelligible. The Good News: It apparently doesn't matter much since I have nothing to say worthy of your eyes or ears. Imagine the grief there would be if Grampy Bobby was an atheist?
Footnote: I take no pleasure at all in having made and communicated these observations; there's so very much at stake.
make yourself better understood, I am entirely unimpressed by your claim that you
take no pleasure in being obtuse and unintelligible and that you feel that there is
so much at stake.
As an example in the thread "An Inductive Argument from Evil" there are a number of
posters on both sides going to considerable lengths to phrase and re-phrase their
arguments so that the other side might understand them. Trying different ways of
exploring the same idea to see which [if any] will click.
You on the other hand do exactly the same thing day in day out without even attempting
to be intelligible.
This leads to the inevitable impression that you do not in fact care whether anyone
understands your posts and that you in fact are simply trolling the forums.
If this isn't the case then it is incumbent on you to do something about it.
Until you do I/we will remain utterly unimpressed with any protestations you make
that you care, or listen to us.
Actions speak louder than words... I'm sure I read that somewhere.
10 Jun 14
Originally posted by googlefudgegooglefudge, do you have a question?
Well given that it is entirely within your power to change how you communicate to
make yourself better understood, I am entirely unimpressed by your claim that you
take no pleasure in being obtuse and unintelligible and that you feel that there is
so much at stake.
As an example in the thread "An Inductive Argument from Evil" there are a number ...[text shortened]... you care, or listen to us.
Actions speak louder than words... I'm sure I read that somewhere.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyStop dredging up your own threads when they have died, it's bad forum etiquette.
googlefudge, do you have a question?
Called thread necromancy.
It's bad because it interferes with people trying to follow current threads.
If you actually engaged in an honest and reasonable manner then you would get
better responses and threads might stay on topic because the discussion and
topic are interesting. You will never keep them on topic simply by reposting
the OP into the middle of other peoples discussions because they gave up
trying to talk to you because your posts are unintelligible, cut and paste fests,
or just ignore everything anyone else has said.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
10 Jun 14
Originally posted by googlefudgeits like the 'walking thread' out here tonight. aim for the head, dont get bitten.
Stop dredging up your own threads when they have died, it's bad forum etiquette.
Called thread necromancy.
It's bad because it interferes with people trying to follow current threads.
If you actually engaged in an honest and reasonable manner then you would get
better responses and threads might stay on topic because the discussion and
topic ar ...[text shortened]... posts are unintelligible, cut and paste fests,
or just ignore everything anyone else has said.
13 Jun 14
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyThe gap theory!
Thank you. Do you have an opinion or position on what took place between Genesis Chapter One verses 1 and 2?
Each verse is a snapshot. There's no reason not to imagine that verse one gives us a picture of perfection. Verse two shows us that something happened to cause the earth to be "without form and void".
I believe it was the initial rebellion that was the cause of the destruction of God's original creation. Of course, that assumes that the angels were already present when God created space, matter and time.
13 Jun 14
3 edits
Originally posted by wolfgang59God and the angels are spirit beings and do not need the physical universe to exist because they exist in the spiritual Heaven were God's throne and His paradise is located. The angels were watching and shouted for joy as God created the physical heavens and the earth.
The angels must have been awfully cramped with [b]no space,
no matter; they had no time to complain.[/b]
God Questions Job about his knowledge of the creation when the sons of God shouted for joy in the following verses:
Now prepare yourself like a man;
I will question you, and you shall answer Me.
“Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?
Tell Me, if you have understanding.
Who determined its measurements?
Surely you know!
Or who stretched the line upon it?
To what were its foundations fastened?
Or who laid its cornerstone,
When the morning stars sang together,
And all the sons of God shouted for joy?
(Job 38:2-7 NKJV)
The morning stars is another name given to all the Archangels, the leaders of the angels. Sons of God also refers to angels.
13 Jun 14
Originally posted by josephwThere is a definitive answer to this, this is copy and pasted from the Wikipedia page entitled "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin":
Hilarious!
That's why whenever I'm asked how many angels can dance on the head of a pin I always say 'all of them.' 🙂
In the humoristic magazine Annals of Improbable Research, Anders Sandberg has presented a calculation based on theories of information physics and quantum gravity, establishing an upper bound of 8.6766×10^49 angels.
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyThis link will interest some of those who are active in this thread.
Opposition to Truth
Whatever opposes truth, is a lie. There are no grey areas.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117071/elaine-ecklund-says-science-religion-are-compatible-why-theyre-not