ME confused... :jawdroop: LOL

Truthseeker, you mean you can not tell me if there is ABSOLUTE TRUTH or not??
After all, ain't you he that seekth truth and have great knowledge, atleast you type like one who has.

ME confused... :jawdroop: LOL

Truthseeker, you mean you can not tell me if there is ABSOLUTE TRUTH or not??
After all, ain't you he that seekth truth and have great knowledge, atleast you type like one who has.

dacy2003 give me your definition of absolute truth and I'll give you my answer otherwise we may end up debating several different points of view.

Some persons seem to think the knowledge i possess is just regurgitated material, which may be true considering there is nothing new under the sun. If that is the case then we are all puking from the same stomach. I have not obtain omniscience as yet dacy2003, although I suspect probably like you and many others who have tried , its unattainable by mere mortals like us except the gods on high. :p

If you do not accept this mode of evolution then please tell me what mode exactly do you accept? You strike me as a well informed person. Perhaps I may have missed something in my explanation.
I accept my own mode and not the infamous 'Thesis proposed IS Premise' of "independent scientists." Find me a dandelion that blows back and do not forget that "independant scientists" also believed in The Four Humors.

Your other comments in order...

When we closely analyze the Genesis creation stories we find that the information provided within does not add up to our historical and scientific knowledge derived from years of studies and investigation by independent scientists.

Independant scientists that add to our historical and scientific knowledge...like whom? Names please. Dates of birth. Dates of death. And the fundamental question: Have you met these independant scientists?
It seems these "independant scientists" may very well occupy for you the very role that you claim GOD occupies for others.
I'm almost sure you've had vaccinations, have you met any of the progeniators of these vaccines? Nope, but you stay jucking them up in your body, and if you had children, I'd bet you'd be getting the shots for them as well.
Also, if the information provided within the Bible is faulty, not scientifically sound, AND doesn't add up to provided scientific knowledge, please explain why "The Wheel, Within The Wheel" has been adopted as a scientific symbol for nuclear research.

In fact the earth has been around approximately 5 billion years. A fatal blow for the Biblical creation timeline.
By whose calendar? I could make myself out to be a couple million years old if I felt like it. Simply by bending time to my will. If I decide that one (common) second is equivalent to one o3parietal year. Then it is accomplished. Again, you appear to be giving assent to other people's concepts without question.

It took modern man approximately 2 million years through a process called evolution to arrive on this planet, not one day as the bible has indicated.
That is your belief. Cool. Then give the LITERAL meaning of the METAPHORICAL term, "A new day is dawning."
And since scientifically you KNOW as well as I do who Earth's greatest predator is, have you ever stopped to consider that all the other "simian-sapiens" could very well have been other species of apes and monkeys we killed off to extinction?
Also, 2 million years hunh? So before the sperm hit the egg, where was the seat of your consciousness?

Obviously a naturally occuring event with out help from God considering he was too please and exhausted after 6 days to do anymore work.
Let's do an independant scientific study on kinesthesia truthseeker. OK?
Now you stand right there, I'm going to kick you in the gonads... now even if done "incorrectly" after the act is done, let's see how long before the after-effects wear off? On your mark...get set...

No I think you have me mistaken with the guy who has the number in his name.
Well, first off, I do have an answer for everything. Sometimes, that answer is, "I don't know." or "I won't respond to that."
Secondly truthseeker, as I said, the problem with claiming to be a truthseeker but only searching for confirmations of your personal convictions is: YOU LOSE because you end up misinforming yourself. The very alphabet you use to type your name and posts is what etymologists like to call alphanumeric. Hint: Study Roman Numerals, then check EVERYBODY'S handle on this thread.

Some persons seem to think the knowledge i possess is just regurgitated material, which may be true considering there is nothing new under the sun. If that is the case then we are all puking from the same stomach. I have not obtain omniscience as yet dacy2003, although I suspect probably like you and many others who have tried , its unattainable by mere mortals like us except the gods on high.

Well, I don't see you coming up with your own system of rationale. All you've been offering is a steady dietary supplement of fallacy for truth. Who taught you to read and speak, and in turn, who taught them to read and speak?
And yes, that's exactly my point, we're all pretty much puking from the same stomach, until we start to question what we "know" present continuously.
Proof, like Method, is relative and objective. Which is why I didn't have the intention of having much to say on this topic. What is proof to you, won't be proof for me and vice versa.

And for the record, anybody who would desire to have omniscience is, in my honest opinion a fool who will drive himself crazy.
It's been my personal experience that keeping up with all the personal changes, conformations and adaptations that just my mind and self go through is impossible.

An authentic Christian life is a life of absolutely no compromise!

Reconsider. Genesis 18: 16-33



I wish that truthseeker and others who do not believe would just try living according to the Bible for 1 month, not according to what the "Chrisitian" community says, but talking to God one on one, read the story of Gideon
Judges 6: 11-14. <<This is similar to what's going on right here.

...and David
1st Samuel 21: 12+13 <<Strange Example.

...or Daniel
Daniel 4:9 <<Strange Example.

...and than try what these men did and I know you will find that God will meet your every challenge you put to Him, because you are that importart to Him.

The problem with this method is that these men who you named aren't perfect.
Why are you sending them to the servants when Christ Himself said to lift HIM up and He would draw all men to Him?
Also, a reminder that the discussion is supposed to be about the authenticity of those same people you named.
That's like sending a 34 yr old to the Tooth Fairy for change.

o3parietal ! Have mercy on a poor old man! I have read your last two postings a number of times and I feel like I have been on one of those rides at Disney Land, you know the ones? The ones that make you dizzy?

I can't understand if you are for or against the Bible, if you believe it or not. I do get the impression that you are a theological law unto yourself.

In simple terms please, without the Pseudo-metaphysical mumbo jumbo, where do you stand?

03partial? did I get that right..

Like your name you are confusing :what: ...indeed.

Reading your writing is like hmmmm...looking at one object until your eyes cross. :biggie:

And the men I chose to refer to from the Bible were all imperfect men who had personal relationship with God, enough that despite their many faults their are considered great men of faith, whom God listened to and responsed to their prayers to deliver them from many evils.

It is not about being good enough or perfect to earn God's love but its about recieving God's Love. That's all I was say, atleast trying to say.

CG I like you ;)

CG I like you ;)
Thanks, dacy2003
:cheers:

o3parietal ! Have mercy on a poor old man! I have read your last two postings a number of times and I feel like I have been on one of those rides at Disney Land, you know the ones? The ones that make you dizzy?

I can't understand if you are for or against the Bible, if you believe it or not. I do get the impression that you are a theological law unto yourself.

In simple terms please, without the Pseudo-metaphysical mumbo jumbo, where do you stand?

Well for one, I've yet to encounter pseudo-metaphysics. Either something/someone IS metaphysical or it isn't.
Two, you're very much so entitled to your impression - I said where I am in my first post on this thread.
And as an educated man, anything can be as simple or as complex as you want it to be.

1 Timothy 1:3-11

03partial? did I get that right..

Like your name you are confusing :what: ...indeed.

Reading your writing is like hmmmm...looking at one object until your eyes cross. :biggie:

And the men I chose to refer to from the Bible were all imperfect men who had personal relationship with God, enough that despite their many faults their are considered great men of faith, whom God listened to and responsed to their prayers to deliver them from many evils.

It is not about being good enough or perfect to earn God's love but its about recieving God's Love. That's all I was say, atleast trying to say.

CG I like you ;)

Yes, "partial". Close, but you're onto something. Parts make a whole. I 've considered many times how I'm a minor reflection of three (03) entities yet, people in general tend to associate with and know only one.

"parietal art: a term used to designate art on the walls of caves and shelters, or on huge blocks."
Stop me if you've heard this one before..."Upon this rock..."
"Holding fast the Faithful Word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by Sound Doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers"
(Titus 1:9).


http://www.health.qld.gov.au/abios/tbi/bparieta.asp <<for the curious.

Thank you for your reply.

You said, "Well for one, I've yet to encounter pseudo-metaphysics. Either something/someone IS metaphysical or it isn't." Stick around! You will see it. Pseudo means fake or false, masquerading as real. Perhaps that was a bit too strong a word for me to have used. However, there is such a thing. It is peddled every day.

Then you went on to say, "Two, you're very much so entitled to your impression - I said where I am in my first post on this thread." I re-read your first post. It said. " I believe The Bible is a book written by men inspired of SOMETHING REAL. There is no doubt in my mind that spirits exist. NONE....." What does the NONE mean? Does that mean there is no doubt in your mind? And the "something real?" If that, "something real," inspired the book, should it not be listened to?

You also said in your first post. "But I've found this to be true: The Bible is a book of words and letters that give accounts of truths and falsehoods, testimony, ethics, riddles, proverbs, secrets to life, secrets to death...It's to be considered. NOT WORSHIPPED." So, you see it as a book to be considered in so far as life is concerned but not worshiped. Here we can agree! Not worshiped but followed, if you subscribe to the faith that follows it, agreed?

You went on to say, "And as an educated man, anything can be as simple or as complex as you want it to be." True! So lets keep it simple - if for no ones sake but my own - I get dizzy real easily.

PS I just checked your first post. You said. "At the age of four my maternal grandfather started to teach me things I would need to know to later fill his shoes as Ipsissimus. I am not an Ipsissimus and I am not a Mason. Do not approach me with such silly, weak concepts or you will be met with displeasure." NOW I undersatand!

o3parietal ! Have mercy on a poor old man! I have read your last two postings a number of times and I feel like I have been on one of those rides at Disney Land, you know the ones? The ones that make you dizzy?

I can't understand if you are for or against the Bible, if you believe it or not. I do get the impression that you are a theological law unto yourself.

In simple terms please, without the Pseudo-metaphysical mumbo jumbo, where do you stand?

Join the club CG.
God is a God of clarity and not confusion.

God is a God of clarity and not confusion.

Correct.

"The following errors occured when this post was submitted:
The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 10 characters."

Thank you for your reply.

PS I just checked your first post. You said. "At the age of four my maternal grandfather started to teach me things I would need to know to later fill his shoes as Ipsissimus. I am not an Ipsissimus and I am not a Mason. Do not approach me with such silly, weak concepts or you will be met with displeasure." NOW I undersatand!

Under"satan"d? What's that...a Freudian Slip? LOL

Hey guys, I feel the need to say "quit it"

:shhh:

Under"satan"d? What's that...a Freudian Slip? LOL

I hope not!! :p It was just a spelling error! I have a lot of those! No offence intended.

Don't forget I am Buddhist. We call the "devil" Mara, not Satan.