egotheistic pantheism revealed...

What does "consuming my fill of flesh" have to do with an "enemy"?I have the knowledge of good and evil, so it's my own responsibility to keep my flesh-consuming to a manageable level. Blaming your own faults on an "enemy" is just irresponsible. What does "hell to pay" have to do with an "enemy"?Who is it Who consigns us to heaven or hell? Your "enemy"? Or the one and only God?Is your dislike of pantheism such that you prefer polytheism? I have no enemies.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

We consign ourselves to hell. You'll find your enemy in the mirror. That is where I found 'mine'.

That sounds mighty egotheistic. But stop and think: the criminal is not the judge. The criminal chooses his actions but the judge assigns his fate.We no more "consign ourselves to hell" than a criminal sentences himself to jail. ABE: Make up your mind. In Message 259, you said:

quote:

---

Or does the enemy present itself as a warm and caring angel of light?

---

Edited by Ringo, : Clicked "Submit" too soon.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

I couldn't have said it better myself, only you are wrong in your interpretation.You see? God is good. So just as a society would not be 'good' by allowing the criminal to remain free, so it is with God.It is only a criminal and a lunatic who blames his consignment on the judge.The prosecutor is the one who accuses. God accuses no-one, and only judges what is right and just.

A judge can suspend sentence and so can God. That's not a reflection on the "goodness" of either. It's called "mercy". Only a criminal is consigned by the judge in the first place. The prosecutor is not the accuser. He is only the representative of the accuser. Then who does? Another "enemy" in your pantheon? To say that, you must have already judged what is "right and just".You become more and more egotheistic.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Rob:Ringo:Joh 5:45 "But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set.Now keep in mind Ringo that Jesus is talking to jews who believe the law will save them. They trust in their works. I almost did not quote this verse because I can anticipate your misconstruing it.Moses represents the law. And the law brings death not life. And the accusor will use that standard by which to prosecute and claim 'his own as his'. Very much like 'the queen of Narnia' (as she calls herself) claims the blood of Edmund in the C.S. Lewis story, 'The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe.'The accuser is the devil.Revelation 12:7 And there was war in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. 8 But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. 9 The great dragon was hurled down--that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him. 10 Then I heard a loud voice in heaven say: "Now have come the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God, and the authority of his Christ. For the accuser of our brothers, who accuses them before our God day and night, has been hurled down. 11 They overcame him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony; they did not love their lives so much as to shrink from death.I am only giving you what the Bible says. that is what it says. If you do not agree with it fine. But it is what it is.

Well, no you're not.Your own Bible quote says:

quote:

---

Joh 5:45 "But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set.

---

but you say: By Logic 101, you're claiming that Moses is the devil. The letter of the law brings death. The spirit of the law brings life. You're still confusing the accuser with the prosecutor.Too many entities in your pantheon.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Not at all. I said irrational conclusions can still be true.Here it is again. This time, please pay attention.What you have in such a case is a true statement.The argument given in support of the statement is not rational. Because the argument is not rational, it does nothing to show how likely the statement is to be true.The statement can still be true. Its truth is just shown on other grounds.- - -Here's how it works. Let's start with a statement:

It's dangerous to cross the street when the Don't Walk sign is on.

This statement is true.A bystander on the corner tells you it's a bad idea to cross the street at such a time because traffic runs at full speed and you could be hurt. Her argument is rational.A bystander on the corner tells you it's a bad idea to cross the street at such a time because a purple rhinoceras living in his toilet back at the asylum says Dakota Fanning is the reincarnation of President Chester Arthur and this has a direct cause-effect relationship with your well-being as you stand there on the curb. His argument is not rational.In both cases the final statement is true. It is dangerous to cross the street.In the first case the logic supporting the statement was sound, so we say the argument is valid. In the second case the logic supporting the statement was not sound, so we say the argument is invalid.The conclusions, though, are identical. And both are true. Facts remain facts.- - -Yes, sound reasoning yields valid conclusions that are far more likely to be proven true in the real world. That's why logic is worth learning and reason is a useful faculty to exercise.But an invalid argument does not in itself prove falsehood. An unsound line of reasoning may still conclude with a true statement, out of dumb luck if for no other reason.Do you understand?If you do not understand, just tell me you do not understand.___Edited by Archer Opterix, : HTML.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

I already addressed this and you know it...As far as I am concerned, you no longer exist. You have wasted far too much of God's prescious time given to me for His name sake.If you only seek to entertain yourself, I will not feed your demonic appetite any longer.

Your accusation would carry more weight if you actually showed where I was wrong instead of just making an empty claim. More egotheism. The real God is not under time constraints. I seek to entertain the lurkers.
By doing so, I hope to prompt them to think about what you don't. My "appetite" is fed by your posts. Whether you reply to me or not makes no difference.(I seem to have a talent for getting on fundyvangelist blacklists. If only I could bottle that.)

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

quote:

---

1. 'I don't understand it, therefore it must be from the Devil.'

​

2. 'I don't understand it, therefore I may need more information.'

​

Which reaction seems healthier to you? Why?

---

Rob: Excellent choice. Bravo.Please remember this. We have some reason to expect a healthier approach next time.Could it be Phat is right about you? Edited by Archer Opterix, : brev.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

I am growing weary of going in circles Archer... You're becoming a burden and a nuisance... So the conclusion is true (danger) as I said.I was pointing out that the reason is flawed.I am so glad we agree.Do you remember why you posited this 'whole mess' in the first place?I said:And you said:Don't you see Archer? The point is that pantheism is false: both the conclusion and the logic. Because it presumes there is no conclusion that is absolute or true, and it uses irrational reasoning to do so.How can a presupposition that their are no conclusions be a legitimate conclusion?This was never about crossing the street or purple dinosaurs. It is about the 'real' and present danger of your insanity, and falseness of it.You've conflated some things that do not cohere. And that is the 'both-and' failure of pantheist logic. It is false.If you want to understand it better, read my respone to Anglagard in his thread on Spinoza pantheism.I tried to explainthis to Iceage earlier in this thread:

The above is a paragraph taken from Catholic Answers web-site..Yes, Rob, I do understand the myriad of explanations for when 'Spirit Baptism' is supposed to happen. This is a perfect example of your condemnation of something you don't understand. See, you want to call everyone who does not conform to YOUR rules 'perverted' or 'controlling' or that awful word 'religious'

Sounds to me like you just agreed...I said nothing false... why are you so offended?

Working from the same Bible, two or more parties can reach a logically valid conclusion.All rational conclusions are not valid. I have nothing to be offended about, other than the fact that you lord your conclusion over my equally valid one.