Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeWithholding favor equals rejection?
You replied: 'Then my favor goes to neither, amigo.'
Have you forgotten that already? First you declined giving favor to the first son, but then panicked when you realised the second son symbolised the non-believer. So resorted to the bizarre answer that neither son had your favor. (Even sonship disagreed with you).
Man, you got squashed.
Not favoring either son equals panic?
Um, don’t think so lol.
Your analogy was flawed for the reasons I already stated. Plus, you had so many illogical hypotheticals piled on top of each other, that it collapsed like a house of cards.
Sad!
Originally posted by @romans1009Stop digging. It's embarrassing.
Withholding favor equals rejection?
Not favoring either son equals panic?
Um, don’t think so lol.
Your analogy was flawed for the reasons I already stated. Plus, you had so many illogical hypotheticals piled on top of each other, that it collapsed like a house of cards.
Sad!
If a Hindu favors his own Gods and doesn't favor yours, wouldn't you say he had rejected your particular brand of God?
If neither son gained your favor, you had rejected them both (which is really silly considering the second son had taken your message of love to his heart, with me even conceding the father could see into his heart and see that it was true).
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeOh, Ghost. Why try to reassemble your house of cards? You and I both know your analogy was a disaster. For your sake, let’s pretend you never mentioned it.
Stop digging. It's embarrassing.
If a Hindu favors his own Gods and doesn't favor yours, wouldn't you say he had rejected your particular brand of God?
If neither son gained your favor, you had rejected them both (which is really silly considering the second son had taken your message of love to his heart, with me even conceding the father could see into his heart and see that it was true).
Just reading it made me feel embarrassment for you. Let’s not dwell on it.
Originally posted by @romans1009Stop digging. It's embarrassing.
Oh, Ghost. Why try to reassemble your house of cards? You and I both know your analogy was a disaster. For your sake, let’s pretend you never mentioned it.
Just reading it made me feel embarrassment for you. Let’s not dwell on it.
If a Hindu favors his own Gods and doesn't favor yours, wouldn't you say he had rejected your particular brand of God?
If neither son gained your favor, you had rejected them both (which is really silly considering the second son had taken your message of love to his heart, with me even conceding the father could see into his heart and see that it was true).
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeI’ve already told you why your analogy was a disaster. Just go back a couple of pages.
Stop digging. It's embarrassing.
If a Hindu favors his own Gods and doesn't favor yours, wouldn't you say he had rejected your particular brand of God?
If neither son gained your favor, you had rejected them both (which is really silly considering the second son had taken your message of love to his heart, with me even conceding the father could see into his heart and see that it was true).
Your desperation in trying to make sense of that convoluted mess is embarrassing.
All the king’s horses and all the king’s men can’t put your analogy back together again.
Originally posted by @romans1009Yes, we read the flannel. How about attempting to address the 2 points made:
I’ve already told you why your analogy was a disaster. Just go back a couple of pages.
Your desperation in trying to make sense of that convoluted mess is embarrassing.
All the king’s horses and all the king’s men can’t put your analogy back together again.
If a Hindu favors his own Gods and doesn't favor yours, wouldn't you say he had rejected your particular brand of God?
If neither son gained your favor, you had rejected them both (which is really silly considering the second son had taken your message of love to his heart, with me even conceding the father could see into his heart and see that it was true).
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeAll kidding aside, your attempt to make sense of nonsense is bringing great shame upon you.
Yes, we read the flannel. How about attempting to address the 2 points made:
If a Hindu favors his own Gods and doesn't favor yours, wouldn't you say he had rejected your particular brand of God?
If neither son gained your favor, you had rejected them both (which is really silly considering the second son had taken your message of love to his heart, with me even conceding the father could see into his heart and see that it was true).
I think your only way out is to pretend you’ve been trolling. I’ll back that play.
Originally posted by @romans1009No kidding:
All kidding aside, your attempt to make sense of nonsense is bringing great shame upon you.
I think your only way out is to pretend you’ve been trolling. I’ll back that play.
If a Hindu favors his own Gods and doesn't favor yours, wouldn't you say he had rejected your particular brand of God?
If neither son gained your favor, you had rejected them both (which is really silly considering the second son had taken your message of love to his heart, with me even conceding the father could see into his heart and see that it was true).
Originally posted by @romans1009C'mon, even you have to admit, it was a little creepy. Not quite as creepy as Rajk made it out to be, but still, a little creepy.
Thanks for that ringing endorsement lol
Originally posted by @sonship"Been there, said that."
Rajk999 always boasts that he will say nothing ever about his personal spiritual experience.
He only wants to teach and not be a witness or testifier.
Exclusively MOUTH teaching.
This is "Don't do as I do. Do as I SAY do."
While condemning "mouth worship" he hypocritically only wants to practice "mouth teaching".