Who cares? I don't control what you post. Stop being so concerned with pleasing me.
On Feb 16, 8:06 am, e_space <[email protected]> wrote: > is this comment by yourself directly on topic? > > "As I said, I am interested in the truth, not necessarily in > augmenting "what I believe." But I have taken that approach for a > very long time, and it seems to me I have learned a great deal that is > simply true. So it is not a matter, for me, of people being > "persuaded to believe what I believe," as if truth were a matter of > opinion. All should believe the truth, whatever it turns out to > be." > > if you dont feel the need to stay on topic, why do you constantly > berate me for taking a diversion on occasion? ... > > On Feb 15, 8:35 pm, Joe <[email protected]> wrote:> On Feb 15, 8:22 pm, > e_space <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > do you think he would have gone away if he found the conversations > > > fulfilling? if your conversations "really mattered" to him, he would > > > still be here, no? > > > Who knows, maybe he'll come back. > > > > discuss what topic? > > > Look in the thread to which you were referring. Look in the opening > > post. It's right there. > > > > On Feb 15, 7:26 pm, Joe <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 15, 6:06 pm, e_space <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > lol ... what you were doing with brock and sm was a circular display > > > > > of im right/youre wrong childish bickering ... > > > > > I was looking forward to progress, and I am sad that Brock went away. > > > > > >that you prefer that > > > > > type of dialogue over what you refer to as fluff, is an indication of > > > > > where your head really is ... > > > > > Brock and I were discussing things that really matter. > > > > > >because my concept does not include your > > > > > god, you consider my words as unimportant ... excuse me, but that has > > > > > zero impact on me ... anyway, your new approach/change hats/paint new > > > > > stripes goal seems to be failing you in spades ... nice try though, > > > > > your civility held up for about 1 1/2 posts, so congrats on that! ;-^) > > > > > You don't appear to want to discuss the topic. That wasn't and isn't > > > > my fault. > > > > > <snip fluff> > > > > > > On Feb 15, 2:59 pm, Joe <[email protected]> wrote:> I prefer content > > > > > over fluff. Just my personal preference, I guess. > > > > > > > But seeing that it appears I have chased away Brock and SM, maybe > > > > > > we're going to be restricted to a lot more fluff. > > > > > > > I'll try, though, to continue to hold up my end of the conversation. > > > > > > > In my ideal world, everyone would know the truth, whatever it may > > > > > > be. > > > > > > > I said that, "whatever it may be." I know I said it originally, but > > > > > > apparently both you and RB missed it, because RB immediately asked > > > > > > me > > > > > > about my own presumptions of the truth, calling the desire for > > > > > > everyone to know "the truth, whatever it may be" dangerous if one is > > > > > > attached to one's own presumptions, which is the opposite of what I > > > > > > said. And then you began asking me more about what you also assume > > > > > > are my presumptions. > > > > > > > We are never going to make any progress at all along these lines. > > > > > > We > > > > > > may satisfy our curiosity about what the other believes, but we are > > > > > > never going to make any real progress in any discussion where anyone > > > > > > learns anything substantial. That's what I'd rather do. I'm really > > > > > > not interested in carrying on these internet discussions as some > > > > > > sort > > > > > > of s social club. It is tedious for my to type rather than to > > > > > > converse. If I want to socialize, I'll do it with people I meet in > > > > > > real life. > > > > > > > You may categorize me any way you like, as is your propensity. You > > > > > > seem very keen on placing me in a neat little box, so that you can > > > > > > be > > > > > > unsurprised at anything I say. You seem to want to have an > > > > > > intellectual handle on the whole thing. That's a symptom of the sin > > > > > > of pride in you, I think. But immediately, you will not take my > > > > > > statement to heart, but rather you will analyze it as more of me > > > > > > attempting to inflict "my" paradigm and "my" prejudice on you. I > > > > > > don't do that. I only seek the truth WHATEVER THAT MAY BE. You > > > > > > seem > > > > > > to always ignore the second half of that statement of mine, the > > > > > > part I > > > > > > put if all capitals. That may be fine for you to continue > > > > > > reinforcing > > > > > > your own prejudice about me, but it doesn't do anything to get you > > > > > > any > > > > > > closer to the truth about me, whatever that may be. I can't force > > > > > > you > > > > > > to love the truth whatever it may be, but I sure can inform you that > > > > > > that's what I'm about, and hope you will see the wisdom in it. I > > > > > > can't make you believe the truth about me that I know about myself. > > > > > > You might be content to stay within your little mental box where > > > > > > everyone behaves and does just what you expect them to do. I can't > > > > > > make you prefer the truth whatever it may be to your own limited > > > > > > mental constructs. I can only say to you, come on in, the water's > > > > > > fine, and hope you will find the courage, somehow, somewhere, to > > > > > > break > > > > > > out of your box. > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 9:47 am, e_space <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > discussions are much more fun when they are not entirely > > > > > > > restricted, > > > > > > > as you want them to be ... tributaries are wonderful from my > > > > > > > outlook, > > > > > > > and to be avoided from yours ... so i guess we have a different > > > > > > > outlook on conversation structures, but that could be said about > > > > > > > a lot > > > > > > > of our outlooks, couldnt it? > > > > > > > > a prime example of the rigid constraints of your "debating" style > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > the circular arguments you were having with brock ... without a > > > > > > > tributary, your conversations are ultra repetitive and not fun to > > > > > > > read ... you feel the need to create a new thread every time a > > > > > > > slight > > > > > > > veer is taken from the subject matter ... even to the point where > > > > > > > you > > > > > > > create new threads about seemingly the same topic ... > > > > > > > > i will take my flexibility over your rigidity any day, but hey, > > > > > > > thats > > > > > > > just my outlook ;-^) > > > > > > > > On Feb 14, 10:23 pm, Joe <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Non-sequiturs are so much more fun than discussions, don't you > > > > > > > > agree? > > > > > > > > > On Feb 14, 2:51 pm, e_space <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > and? > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 14, 1:49 pm, Joe <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > And the sword can't cut itself. And you can't step on the > > > > > > > > > > same piece > > > > > > > > > > of water twice. And up is down and sideways is straight > > > > > > > > > > ahead! > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 14, 7:04 am, e_space <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > a river that has no tributaries often becomes stagnant and > > > > > > > > > > > restrictive ... > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 12, 8:49 pm, Joe <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > We were discussing an ideal this world, and RB brought > > > > > > > > > > > > up the idea of > > > > > > > > > > > > the next world. I don't think we were discussing an > > > > > > > > > > > > ideal next > > > > > > > > > > > > world. I'm not sure it's a relevant discussion. Is > > > > > > > > > > > > that what you'd > > > > > > > > > > > > like to discuss? > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 11, 7:39 am, e_space <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regarding your "Yes" response to RB's comment "But it > > > > > > > > > > > > > may be, then, > > > > > > > > > > > > > that the ideal world you envision is what you hope to > > > > > > > > > > > > > find as an > > > > > > > > > > > > > afterlife?" ... are you indicating that in your > > > > > > > > > > > > > ideal afterlife, > > > > > > > > > > > > > there are individuals, physicality? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 9, 3:03 pm, Joe <[email protected]> wrote:> On > > > > > > > > > > > > > Feb 7, 4:41 am, Redshirt Bluejacket > > > > > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is some risk, I think, in wishing everyone > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to know "the truth" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > while operating under the presumption that your > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > own theology > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > represents that truth -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I didn't stipulate that as a necessary presumption. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >I conversely would probably wish everyone to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "know" the "truth" of pandeism, though I at the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > same time acknowledge > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an inability to prove the efficacy of this model > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in any sort of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > absolute sense.... but, naturally, it ought to be > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > expected as well > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that your ideal world is one wherein the ideology > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > which you attest as > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "truth" is, in fact, truth.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The truth would be known in an ideal world, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whatever it may be. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And there is something of a paradox in this > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > conception, for if your > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > theology is correct, then our real world is the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > produce of an ideal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Creator, and so is exactly as its Creator has > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > determined it is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > intended to be, and yet is filled with people who > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > indeed harbour > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "conflicting beliefs," filled with shameful > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > intolerance (and outright > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > violence).... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Temporarily. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >so in some sense, ours is an ideal world precisely > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > because it contains all of these things, for > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whether yours is a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > theistic or a pandeistic model, it must be > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > confessed that ours is not > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a world from which any of these things are > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > excluded, whether by > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > happenstance or as a matter of a fully realized > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > plan.... and so it > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > must be necessary for these things to exist, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > toward some purpose. It > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is an interesting exercise to contemplate what > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > purpose such may be, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and what end it may serve. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Suppose it were up to you to determine. What would > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you then > > > > > > > > > > > > > > determine? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But it may be, then, that the ideal world you > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > envision is what you > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > hope to find as an afterlife? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Or do you believe such things might be > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > achieved in this, our current life's experience > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of our world? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 6, 3:22 pm, Joe <[email protected]> wrote:> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 6, 1:42 am, Redshirt Bluejacket > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> > > > ... > > > read more »
