My wordy Mormon nemesis

[Cainkane1]

Hi John,
Robert Cardinelle commented on Jim Collins's status.
Robert wrote: "Cain it's there. You aren’t seeing it. You do not know, but you need to know what to look for when you’re seeking something. What you are seeking defines itself with its own properties. You do not define it or them, or you will not see them. And that minister you mentioned was simply putting on a dog and pony show. He’s is blind giving the blind advice. I am not given the authority to say whether people, when they pass through the veil, are better off or worse off. That responsibility and authority are beyond most mortals pay grade. Such is strictly between the individual and God as to how that plays out. We mortals are for the most part commanded not to do it. We can judge right or wrong according to our knowledge, and it ends there. We cannot condemn or exalt. To judge a person in finality, righteously, with mercy and compassion, and still apply justice (mercy cannot rob justice), you need a wholeness of light, truth and knowledge of that law and that persons inner most intricate life. I am unaware of any human on the earth at this time that possesses that degree of wholeness. We are not even aloud to judge ourselves, for that matter and are expressly forbidden to do so. Doing so, in all likelihood will produce the wrong conclusions. Cain there is the “Fall.” The fall means a complete separation from wholeness. In the Fall there will be no empirically evidence, and sometimes evidence will appear contrary as well, because the Fall was not from this sphere, but from a higher existence that can only be known by the properties of that sphere. A rebirth is also required to begin to reenter into that realm and the evidence to support that journey is had by divine knowledge alone (revelation). Those are the strict (strait and narrow) terms. Read Matthew 16:17-18. KJV below carefully, and after that tell me what you believe the “rock” in that passage is? 17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. You are not “whole” for a variety of reasons. But you instead focus solely on your existence as you can perceive it, because you believe that is all you have. That’s fair. You discover that you exist and you and the elements are examinable by the senses and by theory. That’s fair too. But you and the elements are not at issue. They reveal nothing. Something’s missing -- that wholeness. Where is it? What is it? Does it even exist? Is it just a misapplied innate longing? Or is it just hidden? It’s difficult to see something at first -- the part of you that’s not whole (or dead)-- when your carnal mind is already made up with a different means of knowing and conclusion?"


My basic argument against the Diety was answered. My premise was "where is he"?

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Cainkane1

Hi John,
Robert Cardinelle commented on Jim Collins's status.
Robert wrote: "Cain it's there. You aren’t seeing it. You do not know, but you need to know what to look for when you’re seeking something. What you are seeking defines itself with its own properties. You do not define it or them, or you will not see them. And that minister you mentioned was simply putting on a dog and pony show. He’s is blind giving the blind advice. I am not given the authority to say whether people, when they pass through the veil, are better off or worse off. That responsibility and authority are beyond most mortals pay grade. Such is strictly between the individual and God as to how that plays out. We mortals are for the most part commanded not to do it. We can judge right or wrong according to our knowledge, and it ends there. We cannot condemn or exalt. To judge a person in finality, righteously, with mercy and compassion, and still apply justice (mercy cannot rob justice), you need a wholeness of light, truth and knowledge of that law and that persons inner most intricate life. I am unaware of any human on the earth at this time that possesses that degree of wholeness. We are not even aloud to judge ourselves, for that matter and are expressly forbidden to do so. Doing so, in all likelihood will produce the wrong conclusions. Cain there is the “Fall.” The fall means a complete separation from wholeness. In the Fall there will be no empirically evidence, and sometimes evidence will appear contrary as well, because the Fall was not from this sphere, but from a higher existence that can only be known by the properties of that sphere. A rebirth is also required to begin to reenter into that realm and the evidence to support that journey is had by divine knowledge alone (revelation). Those are the strict (strait and narrow) terms. Read Matthew 16:17-18. KJV below carefully, and after that tell me what you believe the “rock” in that passage is? 17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. You are not “whole” for a variety of reasons. But you instead focus solely on your existence as you can perceive it, because you believe that is all you have. That’s fair. You discover that you exist and you and the elements are examinable by the senses and by theory. That’s fair too. But you and the elements are not at issue. They reveal nothing. Something’s missing -- that wholeness. Where is it? What is it? Does it even exist? Is it just a misapplied innate longing? Or is it just hidden? It’s difficult to see something at first -- the part of you that’s not whole (or dead)-- when your carnal mind is already made up with a different means of knowing and conclusion?"


My basic argument against the Diety was answered. My premise was "where is he"?

It's beyond word salad it's word puree.

[sadhatter]

Originally Posted by Cainkane1

Hi John,
Robert Cardinelle commented on Jim Collins's status.
Robert wrote: "Cain it's there. You aren’t seeing it. You do not know, but you need to know what to look for when you’re seeking something. What you are seeking defines itself with its own properties. You do not define it or them, or you will not see them. And that minister you mentioned was simply putting on a dog and pony show. He’s is blind giving the blind advice. I am not given the authority to say whether people, when they pass through the veil, are better off or worse off. That responsibility and authority are beyond most mortals pay grade. Such is strictly between the individual and God as to how that plays out. We mortals are for the most part commanded not to do it. We can judge right or wrong according to our knowledge, and it ends there. We cannot condemn or exalt. To judge a person in finality, righteously, with mercy and compassion, and still apply justice (mercy cannot rob justice), you need a wholeness of light, truth and knowledge of that law and that persons inner most intricate life. I am unaware of any human on the earth at this time that possesses that degree of wholeness. We are not even aloud to judge ourselves, for that matter and are expressly forbidden to do so. Doing so, in all likelihood will produce the wrong conclusions. Cain there is the “Fall.” The fall means a complete separation from wholeness. In the Fall there will be no empirically evidence, and sometimes evidence will appear contrary as well, because the Fall was not from this sphere, but from a higher existence that can only be known by the properties of that sphere. A rebirth is also required to begin to reenter into that realm and the evidence to support that journey is had by divine knowledge alone (revelation). Those are the strict (strait and narrow) terms. Read Matthew 16:17-18. KJV below carefully, and after that tell me what you believe the “rock” in that passage is? 17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. You are not “whole” for a variety of reasons. But you instead focus solely on your existence as you can perceive it, because you believe that is all you have. That’s fair. You discover that you exist and you and the elements are examinable by the senses and by theory. That’s fair too. But you and the elements are not at issue. They reveal nothing. Something’s missing -- that wholeness. Where is it? What is it? Does it even exist? Is it just a misapplied innate longing? Or is it just hidden? It’s difficult to see something at first -- the part of you that’s not whole (or dead)-- when your carnal mind is already made up with a different means of knowing and conclusion?"


My basic argument against the Diety was answered. My premise was "where is he"?

I've said it before and i'll say it again, if you didn't pay attention in your last year of high school's english class, don't try to cover that up by adding more words.

More words does not equal a higher chance of being right, or that your point is better understood. Word economy and clarity of message is key. These are not bullets, these are words, you do not fire them off en masse because it gives you a better chance of success.

The problem is, people like this do not grasp the simple concepts of word economy and clarity. Yet they expect us to believe somehow they have discovered secrets about the universe that we could not fathom.

The first step to being taken seriously is to put some time and effort into the format of what your saying. It shows the reader that your not just rambling off of the top of your head, and that you have put some thought into what you want to say and how you want to say it. Otherwise it seems ( and in this case, appearance is reality. ) like your simply trying to emulate smart people by writing a lot, not understanding that when someone intelligent is doing that, they are doing it because they have a lot to say, not because more words = more right.

[sadhatter]

Originally Posted by tsig

It's beyond word salad it's word puree.

To me puree would imply homogeneity , this is more word chili, a bunch of semi connected things all thrown together , and no matter how much someone may like it or how great they think it is, the fact remains it still smells of flatus.

[Eric D]

Originally Posted by Cainkane1

Hi John,
Robert Cardinelle commented on Jim Collins's status.
Robert wrote: "Cain it's there. You aren’t seeing it. You do not know, but you need to know what to look for when you’re seeking something. What you are seeking defines itself with its own properties. You do not define it or them, or you will not see them. And that minister you mentioned was simply putting on a dog and pony show. He’s is blind giving the blind advice. I am not given the authority to say whether people, when they pass through the veil, are better off or worse off. That responsibility and authority are beyond most mortals pay grade. Such is strictly between the individual and God as to how that plays out. We mortals are for the most part commanded not to do it. We can judge right or wrong according to our knowledge, and it ends there. We cannot condemn or exalt. To judge a person in finality, righteously, with mercy and compassion, and still apply justice (mercy cannot rob justice), you need a wholeness of light, truth and knowledge of that law and that persons inner most intricate life. I am unaware of any human on the earth at this time that possesses that degree of wholeness. We are not even aloud to judge ourselves, for that matter and are expressly forbidden to do so. Doing so, in all likelihood will produce the wrong conclusions. Cain there is the “Fall.” The fall means a complete separation from wholeness. In the Fall there will be no empirically evidence, and sometimes evidence will appear contrary as well, because the Fall was not from this sphere, but from a higher existence that can only be known by the properties of that sphere. A rebirth is also required to begin to reenter into that realm and the evidence to support that journey is had by divine knowledge alone (revelation). Those are the strict (strait and narrow) terms. Read Matthew 16:17-18. KJV below carefully, and after that tell me what you believe the “rock” in that passage is? 17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. You are not “whole” for a variety of reasons. But you instead focus solely on your existence as you can perceive it, because you believe that is all you have. That’s fair. You discover that you exist and you and the elements are examinable by the senses and by theory. That’s fair too. But you and the elements are not at issue. They reveal nothing. Something’s missing -- that wholeness. Where is it? What is it? Does it even exist? Is it just a misapplied innate longing? Or is it just hidden? It’s difficult to see something at first -- the part of you that’s not whole (or dead)-- when your carnal mind is already made up with a different means of knowing and conclusion?"


My basic argument against the Diety was answered. My premise was "where is he"?

When religious folks go on, they sound like they learned their language from comics and fantasy novels. "We mere mortals..." "The hands of the wicked..." "We will smite the evil doers..." and so on. Honestly, who normally talks like that?

[sadhatter]

Originally Posted by Eric D

When religious folks go on, they sound like they learned their language from comics and fantasy novels. "We mere mortals..." "The hands of the wicked..." "We will smite the evil doers..." and so on. Honestly, who normally talks like that?

You know i have always said a slightly different version of the same thing. They sound like they are reading out of a friggen D and D manual. Instructions interspersed with flowery words that are trying to sound epic. The problem is this is okay in the D and D manual because it gives flavor to an otherwise somewhat dry explanation. In real life it is simply indicative that someone has little knowledge of how to make their point coherently.

[ParrotPirate]

Originally Posted by tsig

It's beyond word salad it's word puree.

It's worse than that, even. It's word slurry.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by ParrotPirate

It's worse than that, even. It's word slurry.

A word slurpy?

[Cainkane1]

Well he's educated. He has an engineering degree from Davis University CA. He takes pride in his vocabulary but as someone else has pointed it doesn't matter what you say if you don't if you don't know what you are talking about.

In a post I made containing an argument I beat him using just plain language. I said much more than he did and you didn't need a dictionary to know what I was talking about.

He knows a lot but his progressed man in another dimension consumes him on a daily basis.

[Cainkane1]

Robert Cardinelle Why don’t you read the scriptures and gain some understanding of them. It is really annoying to listen to you moan and groan ignorantly, putting words and conditions not given in the Scriptures in the Scriptures’ and God’s mouth; masqueradi...ng like you’re in the know and some kind of authority or expert on the matter – when clearly you are not. You do not understand a thing. You think you do but you do not. You’re self-deceived.

Who said nothing happens? YOU? Man I have had numerous prayers answered and have been comforted by prayer. Prayers are answered, but you have to remember this rule – faith precedes the miracle.

You don’t even know the rules given for prayer and answers, but that doesn’t stop you from complaining. How can you criticize what you do not understand? What you are good at is squawking like a bird that can’t fly through no fault but his own. You have personally had no experiences so naturally you believe everyone suffers from the same insufferable malady and spiritual disease as you.

A believer does not experience a sense of betrayal from God if he does not err in the meaning of the scriptures; an unbeliever will though. It’s you that says problems exist where they do not. Scriptures are replete with examples of men, even The Christ, going forward in faith and being rewarded even when things didn’t turn out like they hoped for. So what’s worse by far is the ignorant atheist’s absurd, faithless anguish and hopeless existentialism. Your god is your belly.

Look at this guy. His hatred of non theists is so intense I can feel it through the computer screen its no wonder so many human rghts violations have occurred in the name of some god..

[Tiktaalik]

Originally Posted by Cainkane1

Robert Cardinelle Why don’t you read the scriptures and gain some understanding of them. It is really annoying to listen to you moan and groan ignorantly, putting words and conditions not given in the Scriptures in the Scriptures’ and God’s mouth; masqueradi...ng like you’re in the know and some kind of authority or expert on the matter – when clearly you are not. You do not understand a thing. You think you do but you do not. You’re self-deceived.

Who said nothing happens? YOU? Man I have had numerous prayers answered and have been comforted by prayer. Prayers are answered, but you have to remember this rule – faith precedes the miracle.

You don’t even know the rules given for prayer and answers, but that doesn’t stop you from complaining. How can you criticize what you do not understand? What you are good at is squawking like a bird that can’t fly through no fault but his own. You have personally had no experiences so naturally you believe everyone suffers from the same insufferable malady and spiritual disease as you.

A believer does not experience a sense of betrayal from God if he does not err in the meaning of the scriptures; an unbeliever will though. It’s you that says problems exist where they do not. Scriptures are replete with examples of men, even The Christ, going forward in faith and being rewarded even when things didn’t turn out like they hoped for. So what’s worse by far is the ignorant atheist’s absurd, faithless anguish and hopeless existentialism. Your god is your belly.

Look at this guy. His hatred of non theists is so intense I can feel it through the computer screen its no wonder so many human rghts violations have occurred in the name of some god..

I think here he's applying a form of the No True Scotsman fallacy - that he has had the Real Experience, and you, obviously, have not; that therefore you Can't Possibly Understand what's going on, because if you had had this True Experience you would obviously think Just Like He Does.

He's convinced that what he experiences is something from God, whereas those of us who are not religious are pretty sure we're experiencing the same exact thing, only it's a production of our own minds and emotions, and can be triggered by our own knowledge, not the intrusion of some otherworldly power.

On the other hand, you can't really argue with a True Believer, because he sincerely believes that he knows something you do not. If you told him you had converted but that you interpret the words of the Bible differently, he would accuse you of having had a false conversion; the "Truth" is something learned, not something you can just get from say, reading the bible (which it should be if it was divine).

Tough to argue with this stuff...

[Tricky]

I did not know that the Mormon religion forbade paragraphs.

[I Ratant]

Originally Posted by Cainkane1

Well he's educated. He has an engineering degree ....

.
'Nuff sed.
I know lots of engineers.. I r one, and word gobble-de-gook and lack of understanding of anything outside their field is normal!
And with a missionary Jones on his back... sad.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by I Ratant

.
'Nuff sed.
I know lots of engineers.. I r one, and word gobble-de-gook and lack of understanding of anything outside their field is normal!
And with a missionary Jones on his back... sad.

People who are very well educated in a very narrow field often mistake their field for the whole world.

[Kopji]

I speak Mormon Gibberish. Translation:

When the Bible talks about the 'rock' that faith is built on, it means revelation, not Peter like most Christians mistakenly think. Revelation is a source of knowledge, so if you don't believe in it, you are cut off from full understanding.

[Quinn]

Originally Posted by Kopji

I speak...

...jive?

Quote:

...Mormon Gibberish.

Ahh, even less comprehensible. Kudos!

[Cainkane1]

.Friend not found on chat.
You are currently offline. To chat with your friends, go online..See AllEvents
.
Please provide an event name
Cynthia Culpepper Carter's birthday. See All.Find More Friends
.John, More Friends Are Waiting
Keith W. WassungAmanda Stout TuellJoanne BeechamKat LeaphartJeff CarrollShirley Sanders ParksJames Hurd.These 10 friends found their friends using the friend finder. Have you found all of your friends? Give it a try.



.Create an AdSponsored
. Bye-Bye Buyer’s Remorse
Buy a mobile phone, laptop, netbook, tablet or TV and we’ll buy it back when you’re ready to upgrade. Click “Like” to learn more..Jeff Carroll likes Best Buy.
Like.See AllRequests
.1 application request
99 game requestsGet Connected
.Who's on Facebook?
Find your friends.Who's not on Facebook?
Invite them now.Who's here because of you?
Track your invites.Connect on the go
Try Facebook Mobile. Top News · Most Recent3News Feed.Share:StatusStatusPhotoPhotoLinkLinkVideoVide o
.

What's on your mind?
EveryoneEveryoneFriends of FriendsFriends OnlyCustomizeCustomeditEveryoneFriends of FriendsFriends OnlyCustomize..
Jim Collins
‎"Among the most detestable villains in history, you could not find one worse than Moses. Here is an order, attributed to 'God' to butcher the boys, to massacre the mothers and to debauch and rape the daughters. I would not dare so dishonor my Creator's name by (attaching) it to this filthy book (the Bible)." -- Thomas Paine
2 hours ago · LikeUnlike ·

David Styles likes this..
.Kerri Kellerman are you seriously quoting carl sagan to "prove" the existence of deities? SERIOUSLY??? you can't prove that moses existed either, without the old fallback, "it says so in the bible so it must be true!"
28 minutes ago · LikeUnlike.Robert Cardinelle Kerri - morality is not innate. It is predicated upon laws. Show me in your handbook of rules for kings, rulers and nations in that time where warfare was immoral or illegal between nations. What laws were broken that were known and accepte...d by convention to kingdoms and rulers at that time? Where is your book of rules? Is it in the chronological annals of the corrupt times in Abraham’s time (ca 1759), or the multiplicity dispersions of the Indo Aryans (ca 1500), which preceded Moses (ca.1250)?

No one is even suggesting proving the existence of deities here. Jim’s quotation said, “I would not dare so dishonor my Creator's name by (attaching) it to this filthy book (the Bible)." Then Jim followed that up with his own opinion saying, “I believe the Moses story was stolen, or borrowed from Bacchus.” By you interjection, you create the Argumentum Ad Verecundium, suggesting Carl Sagan is the proper authority to debate this Jim’s proposition. Proving the existence of deities is irrelevant. We’re just stories.

If you need to be reminded, the evidence Jim would have to produce to be credible probable would be ontological, epistemological evidence. That is the correct venue here. Not Sagan’s theoretical science. Do you even know what those terms mean? Or are you just another angry person frothing mad at religion?

I have not interjected the Bible in this argument, except as it might apply to Jim’s assertion of the Greek Bacchus being borrowed for Moses. There are some serious chronological and structural issues with Jim’s assertion. I am asking him t produce his argument and any evidence he has supporting it.

You need to get our anti-God bias and God anger in check so you can participate in civil decent conversations and learn something.

[Vorticity]

Originally Posted by sadhatter

They sound like they are reading out of a friggen D and D manual. Instructions interspersed with flowery words that are trying to sound epic.

The entire Mormon religion is based on this.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Vorticity

The entire Mormon religion is based on this.

And it did verily come to pass that I didst agree with thee.

[Pup]

Originally Posted by Vorticity

The entire Mormon religion is based on this.

Can I pick a nit? I'd say the Mormon religion is based on the idea that God is still giving revelation. Without that belief, the Book of Mormon would have no significance to anyone and, more importantly, the church couldn't have been altered over the years to what it is, through claims of direct revelation.

If you can convince people that when you speak, you're speaking directly for God, you've got a good start toward amassing power, but it's like multi-level marketing: The prophet (head of the church) can give messages from God for all the members, but lesser leaders can only give God messages to those under them, until you get down to the head of household who can only give God's messages for the household and then the individual who can only receive individual revelation for him/herself.

Edited to add: It's certainly true that when God speaks to Mormons, though, he seems to speak with an epic, archaic flair.

[phantomb]

Paragraphs are your friends!

[Kopji]

Originally Posted by Quinn

...jive?

Ahh, even less comprehensible. Kudos!

On my backburner of social studies to accomplish is the use of the word "fruition". Like in "Maybe it will come to fruition". My theory is that only Mormons use the word. If you hear it in a sentence, the person is almost certainly a Mormon, or maybe is closely exposed to one and picks up the word like a virus.

[Halfcentaur]

Originally Posted by Cainkane1

.Friend not found on chat.
You are currently offline. To chat with your friends, go online..See AllEvents
.
Please provide an event name
Cynthia Culpepper Carter's birthday. See All.Find More Friends
.John, More Friends Are Waiting
Keith W. WassungAmanda Stout TuellJoanne BeechamKat LeaphartJeff CarrollShirley Sanders ParksJames Hurd.These 10 friends found their friends using the friend finder. Have you found all of your friends? Give it a try.



.Create an AdSponsored
. Bye-Bye Buyer’s Remorse
Buy a mobile phone, laptop, netbook, tablet or TV and we’ll buy it back when you’re ready to upgrade. Click “Like” to learn more..Jeff Carroll likes Best Buy.
Like.See AllRequests
.1 application request
99 game requestsGet Connected
.Who's on Facebook?
Find your friends.Who's not on Facebook?
Invite them now.Who's here because of you?
Track your invites.Connect on the go
Try Facebook Mobile. Top News · Most Recent3News Feed.Share:StatusStatusPhotoPhotoLinkLinkVideoVide o
.

What's on your mind?
EveryoneEveryoneFriends of FriendsFriends OnlyCustomizeCustomeditEveryoneFriends of FriendsFriends OnlyCustomize..
Jim Collins
‎"Among the most detestable villains in history, you could not find one worse than Moses. Here is an order, attributed to 'God' to butcher the boys, to massacre the mothers and to debauch and rape the daughters. I would not dare so dishonor my Creator's name by (attaching) it to this filthy book (the Bible)." -- Thomas Paine
2 hours ago · LikeUnlike ·

David Styles likes this..
.Kerri Kellerman are you seriously quoting carl sagan to "prove" the existence of deities? SERIOUSLY??? you can't prove that moses existed either, without the old fallback, "it says so in the bible so it must be true!"
28 minutes ago · LikeUnlike.Robert Cardinelle Kerri - morality is not innate. It is predicated upon laws. Show me in your handbook of rules for kings, rulers and nations in that time where warfare was immoral or illegal between nations. What laws were broken that were known and accepte...d by convention to kingdoms and rulers at that time? Where is your book of rules? Is it in the chronological annals of the corrupt times in Abraham’s time (ca 1759), or the multiplicity dispersions of the Indo Aryans (ca 1500), which preceded Moses (ca.1250)?

No one is even suggesting proving the existence of deities here. Jim’s quotation said, “I would not dare so dishonor my Creator's name by (attaching) it to this filthy book (the Bible)." Then Jim followed that up with his own opinion saying, “I believe the Moses story was stolen, or borrowed from Bacchus.” By you interjection, you create the Argumentum Ad Verecundium, suggesting Carl Sagan is the proper authority to debate this Jim’s proposition. Proving the existence of deities is irrelevant. We’re just stories.

If you need to be reminded, the evidence Jim would have to produce to be credible probable would be ontological, epistemological evidence. That is the correct venue here. Not Sagan’s theoretical science. Do you even know what those terms mean? Or are you just another angry person frothing mad at religion?

I have not interjected the Bible in this argument, except as it might apply to Jim’s assertion of the Greek Bacchus being borrowed for Moses. There are some serious chronological and structural issues with Jim’s assertion. I am asking him t produce his argument and any evidence he has supporting it.

You need to get our anti-God bias and God anger in check so you can participate in civil decent conversations and learn something.

What is all this?

You can make a quote by typing (without the spaces)

[ q u o t e ] Here is where you paste the quote. [ / q u o t e ]

This way you can separate your posts from what you're quoting from other sources.