(January 30, 2014 at 3:00 pm)rasetsu Wrote:

(January 30, 2014 at 2:52 pm)Drich Wrote: 4 you are holding up 4 fingers.

So, in other words, it isn't God answering, it's just you. Thought so.

Btw, telling someone you know doesn't have fingers that they're holding up 4 of them is even more stupid than your usual.

What happened to them?

---

(January 30, 2014 at 3:06 pm)pocaracas Wrote:

(January 30, 2014 at 3:00 pm)rasetsu Wrote: So, in other words, it isn't God answering, it's just you. Thought so.

Btw, telling someone you know doesn't have fingers that they're holding up 4 of them is even more stupid than your usual.

He may have never been to that part of the forum where we share some more details about ourselves...

From all this exchange between you guys and Drich... I can see one thing...
Drich does not understand the concept of "confirmation bias".... at least when applied to his A.S.K. method.
And you guys have spent... what?... 5 pages?... 10 pages?... multi-combo-threads... trying to explain it to him... even I've tried it!... He just does not get it.

So... let him keep talking about his flawed method... if we pay no mind, he may just go away...
I'd like to keep MrsTRish around, though...

It's like I have to hand hold each and everyone of you through this explaination.
http://www.psychologyandsociety.com/conf...nbias.html

As per the above defination I get what confirm bias is.

How does a/s/k not apply? Because one is a/s/king for the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is a deity apart from your personality, logic and ability to manage or create order/disorder In Your life.

Confirmation bias looks for evidence that fits a forgone conclusion.

How does this definition fail to describe ask seek knock for the Holy Spirit? Because one need know nothing about God the Holy Spirit or Christianity, to receive the same direction and guidance found in the bible.

Matter of fact by the admission of many of you, the Christianity I repersent is unknown to most of you. To the point that I have been labeled a heretic by atheists...

So again, how can the term confirmation bias apply if the result is counter the forgone conclusion of what many of you would identify as main stream Christianity.

---

(January 30, 2014 at 10:27 pm)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote:

(January 30, 2014 at 10:07 pm)Drich Wrote: How can you still think that any of what I said hinges on personal interpretation?

It's the complete lack of, or your unwillingness to demonstrate, any 'evidence' that isn't entirely subjective in nature.

I'm not willing to demonstrate any 'evidence' as that is not my task. My task is to point you to what you must do to receive the evidence God offers.

If you want it you will humble yourself and do as you have been asked. If you don't then you can follow the examples of the Greeks and convince yourself with self important reasons not to.

Maybe I missed it, but did you answer my car question?

---

(January 30, 2014 at 10:30 pm)Luckie Wrote:

Drich Wrote:God does not exist, or he has chosen not to share himself with you.

Add that to the list of things I don't consider even Biblical that I'd appreciate for you to address.

Be glad too, but From what post did you get this?

---

(January 30, 2014 at 10:35 pm)rasetsu Wrote:

(January 30, 2014 at 9:51 pm)Drich Wrote: Do you know what Christ said to his disciples when they wanted Jesus to perform a trick on demand? He cursed at them and said no. He essentially told them they would be too stupid to recognize what will (has) already been done.

So tell me, how or why should God treat either of us any differently?

38 Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law answered Jesus. They said, “Teacher, we want to see you do a miracle as a sign from God.”

39 Jesus answered, “Evil and sinful people are the ones who want to see a miracle as a sign. But no miracle will be done to prove anything to them. The only sign will be the miracle that happened to the prophet Jonah.[f] 40 Jonah was in the stomach of the big fish for three days and three nights. In the same way, the Son of Man will be in the grave three days and three nights. 41 On the judgment day, you people who live now will be compared with the people from Nineveh,[g] and they will be witnesses who show how guilty you are. Why do I say this? Because when Jonah preached to those people, they changed their lives. And you are listening to someone greater than Jonah, but you refuse to change!

This is from my previous reply about the Tyre prophecy. I was going to reuse the tab in my browser, but the first sentence caught my eye, and it's quite apt as a response to you.

(September 16, 2013 at 2:45 pm)rasetsu Wrote: It's a sad comment on apologetics that it is no longer at all concerned with showing themselves correct. It's all about finding new and better ways of avoiding having to admit that you are wrong.

Since you were the one claiming that God shows you signs in your life, it's rather two-faced of you to turn around and claim that Jesus said that the asking for signs is the sign of an evil man.

To answer my own question, What I receive is not a sign of any kind. It goes back to what Christ said in the text I left you. The Pharisees wanted to see a sign, Christ rebukes them for not being to pick up on all He is actively doing. Meaning they were blind to all the miricals He had already done. They want him to do a magic trick on demand for them. To which He condemns them for not being able to recognize what He has already done In The Name of the Father. (He says it was because they were wicked and not faithful to what God had given them. That they could not see Christ for who He was.)

What the H/S does for me in a similar way is not a sign or wonder/magic trick of any sort on demand. It is how I interact with God daily. I ask God related questions and I get answers. This is the mudain day to day stuff the Pharisees could not see that verified the deity of Christ in His day. I do not share this to make myself out to be someone important, but an example of how God can work with very little, and still effect or touch many lives.

Imagine what He could do with someone like you.

---

(January 30, 2014 at 11:22 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(January 30, 2014 at 12:56 am)Drich Wrote: https://www.apologeticspress.org/apconte...ticle=1790

Nope nope nope.

I'm not going to take an explanation from "apologetics press," dude. Seems like they might have a little bit of a bias toward defending the indefensible, rather than, you know, the truth.

Besides, I've already seen the kind of mental gymnastics your kind are willing to employ in order to make simple, direct sentences say things they don't say. That's not news, it's just embarrassing.

If your in over your head at any point you do not need a reason to not respond, just don't respond. I don't hold it against you. Besides I'm occupied with the half a dozen different direction this thread is Going to even remember what specifically the tyre thing was actually about.

(January 30, 2014 at 11:43 pm)Drich Wrote:

(January 30, 2014 at 10:35 pm)rasetsu Wrote: Since you were the one claiming that God shows you signs in your life, it's rather two-faced of you to turn around and claim that Jesus said that the asking for signs is the sign of an evil man.

To answer my own question, What I receive is not a sign of any kind.

In what way is what God does for you, making himself and his purpose visible to you, not a sign? Now you're just playing word games. "It's not a sign; it's an answer. It's not an answer; it's a reply. It's not a reply; it's a sign." You're just jerking off claiming that what God does for you isn't a sign when the whole point of your A/S/K bullshit is to say that if you perform the right sequence of ritualistic steps, God will give an unmistakable answer that can't be mistaken as not from God. That's the very definition of a sign. So in this passage, Jesus says not to ask for signs; in Luke, however, we're encouraged to look for signs, literally, symbols which point the way, in modern parlance. (We'll look at it exegetically if you like.) So what we have is not you providing "clarity" for one who earnestly seeks the divine, which I do, you know this, it is the backbone of my Hinduism. Instead of clarity, what you have presented is a Jesus who says something diametrically opposite to things he's said before, just to get himself out of a rhetorical jam. And you, for your part, hold the hypocrisy of Christ dearly to your breast and try to justify it by playing word games. You're pathetic. You know nothing of God. I know god personally, intimately. This is not god you are representing; you're defending a first century magician who couldn't keep his own lies straight. You're defending a liar, and in so doing, making of yourself a liar. Calling it a question and an answer, rather than a demand for a sign, doesn't change the nature of what you are doing. You are the modern day Pharisee, expecting your "signs" (replies) to be from God. They aren't.

And "god" already works wonders with me. Your ego, however, insists on calling what I do "pandering" because you are jealous of the acclaim the divine has anointed my travels with. Oh, but the Lord loves that haughty look of yours, yes S/he does.

(January 30, 2014 at 11:43 pm)Drich Wrote: If your in over your head at any point you do not need a reason to not respond, just don't respond. I don't hold it against you. Besides I'm occupied with the half a dozen different direction this thread is Going to even remember what specifically the tyre thing was actually about.

I had a reason to respond, that being that when one considers those groups that would have an unbiased approach to appraising a given text, apologists for that text aren't generally considered, there. It'd be like if you were fact checking an autobiography, and the only person you interviewed was the author; there's a bias there towards preserving the claims made in the text, irrespective of the actual truth of them.

And that, by the way, is not even taking into account the track record apologists have for lying out their asses.

(January 31, 2014 at 1:03 am)rasetsu Wrote: In what way is what God does for you, making himself and his purpose visible to you, not a sign?

because again a sign is a bit of a grand magic trick event something like stopping the sun from setting, parting the Red Sea, walking on water, raising the dead to life. These are signs. The Pharisees demanded this from Jesus to prove Himself. You wanted a mind reading. Which again is also a sign. Christ in mat 12 and mat 16 rebuke those who seek signs as proof of anything. So again I ask if He would not honor such a request personally why would He do this by proxy?

Quote:Now you're just playing word games. "It's not a sign; it's an answer. It's not an answer; it's a reply. It's not a reply; it's a sign." You're just jerking off claiming that what God does for you isn't a sign when the whole point of your A/S/K bullshit is to say that if you perform the right sequence of ritualistic steps, God will give an unmistakable answer that can't be mistaken as not from God. That's the very definition of a sign.

God is offering a relationship with the Holy Spirit. Not the ability to witness or perform signs. What I was trying to offer here with the question I was seeking from you was to demonstrate the relationship I do have. In that none of the questions I have go unanswered.
Again, God is not parting the Red Sea here, He is simply full filling a promise to me that He has made to all of us. In that 'the Holy Spirit writes His word on our hearts. If you are faithful to this gift then the secrets of the bible are no longer hidden, and there isn't a question we can't petition God to answer.

Quote:So in this passage, Jesus says not to ask for signs; in Luke, however, we're encouraged to look for signs, literally, symbols which point the way, in modern parlance.

Is looking asking?
We are not to be shunned or run from signs but at the same time we are not to build our faith on them.

Quote:(We'll look at it exegetically if you like.) So what we have is not you providing "clarity" for one who earnestly seeks the divine, which I do, you know this, it is the backbone of my Hinduism. Instead of clarity, what you have presented is a Jesus who says something diametrically opposite to things he's said before, just to get himself out of a rhetorical jam. And you, for your part, hold the hypocrisy of Christ dearly to your breast and try to justify it by playing word games. You're pathetic.

what word games? Is looking asking? If I like to look at old cars is it the same as asking someone if they would give me one? How is that a word game? How is that I turn a contradiction?

Quote:You know nothing of God.

in the infinite ness that is God you are right. A finite vessel could not contain all the knowledge of God.

Quote: I know god personally, intimately. This is not god you are representing;

with that their is no doubt.

Quote:you're defending a first century magician who couldn't keep his own lies straight.

As I pointed out your usually adept literally skills have let you down, as looking and asking are not the same thing.

Quote:You're defending a liar, and in so doing, making of yourself a liar.

if the God of the bible is a liar then know I am proud to be known as a liar myself.

Quote:Calling it a question and an answer, rather than a demand for a sign, doesn't change the nature of what you are doing. You are the modern day Pharisee, expecting your "signs" (replies) to be from God. They aren't.

Again there is a vast difference between a sign and the personal relationship. In the relationship we are offered an on going interaction, this relationship does not offer the ability to perform miricals or front row seat to them. It offers a on going relationship with the Holy Spirit.

Quote:And "god" already works wonders with me. Your ego, however, insists on calling what I do "pandering" because you are jealous of the acclaim the divine has anointed my travels with. Oh, but the Lord loves that haughty look of yours, yes S/he does.

If you ever want more than what your god has to offer all you need do is a/s/k for it.

You follow up my pointing out that you are playing word games with more word games. That's really sad.

(January 30, 2014 at 11:43 pm)Drich Wrote: I'm not willing to demonstrate any 'evidence' as that is not my task. My task is to point you to what you must do to receive the evidence God offers.

Then he needs to contact me. I've already made the effort. You don't ask evidence to reveal itself. It's either there for me to find or it's not.

Quote:If you want it you will humble yourself and do as you have been asked. If you don't then you can follow the examples of the Greeks and convince yourself with self important reasons not to.

There are no self-important reasons not to ask questions of a being that I have zero compelling reasons to believe exists. Perhaps you just completely forgot to read everything I said in my previous posts about this.

Telling me that I have to start out with faith is telling me that there's nothing to have faith in. You're telling me that it's not about confirming biases, but you're telling me that if I don't develop a bias, I'll never get any results.

(January 30, 2014 at 11:43 pm)Drich Wrote:

(January 30, 2014 at 10:30 pm)Luckie Wrote: Add that to the list of things I don't consider even Biblical that I'd appreciate for you to address.

Be glad too, but From what post did you get this?

My bad. It was a Rasetsu comment, not yours. What do you mean be glad?

You still working on responding to the rest of my long post, or is what you replied with all I got to work with here?

(January 30, 2014 at 11:43 pm)Drich Wrote:

(January 30, 2014 at 3:06 pm)pocaracas Wrote: He may have never been to that part of the forum where we share some more details about ourselves...

From all this exchange between you guys and Drich... I can see one thing...
Drich does not understand the concept of "confirmation bias".... at least when applied to his A.S.K. method.
And you guys have spent... what?... 5 pages?... 10 pages?... multi-combo-threads... trying to explain it to him... even I've tried it!... He just does not get it.

So... let him keep talking about his flawed method... if we pay no mind, he may just go away...
I'd like to keep MrsTRish around, though...

It's like I have to hand hold each and everyone of you through this explaination.
http://www.psychologyandsociety.com/conf...nbias.html

As per the above defination I get what confirm bias is.

How does a/s/k not apply? Because one is a/s/king for the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is a deity apart from your personality, logic and ability to manage or create order/disorder In Your life.

You have confirmation bias working on different levels here.

One of them is your pre-recognition of the divine... you already believed in god, the god of christianity, the trinity... you were already aware of this god and believed it exists.

Then you had your dream.
Biasing from your prior belief led you to accept it as divine.

And then proceeded to search for more details.
Biasing from your dream made you find the details you wanted in the text.
It is not surprising that others may have written about similar experiences.

Take the famous light at the end of the tunnel experienced by some NDE patients.
If one associates this light with some afterlife place, and the others, previously attuned to acknowledge the divine, come across this interpretation, they will agree with the interpretation, thus strengthening their belief in that divinity.

So, is the light at the end of the tunnel an actual place or is it neurochemistry in the brain of a few people making them see that... or something else?
What seems more likely? (provided we have no actual way of measuring all this)

(January 30, 2014 at 11:43 pm)Drich Wrote: Confirmation bias looks for evidence that fits a forgone conclusion.

How does this definition fail to describe ask seek knock for the Holy Spirit? Because one need know nothing about God the Holy Spirit or Christianity, to receive the same direction and guidance found in the bible.

Wrong... one needs to know something... that's why someone wrote about it. Had no one wrote a word about it, would you know that you had to do it?
You need to know about the existence of some sort of a divine being... and you need to know that this methodology can lead you to further acknowledging it.
Given that, how do you differentiate the reality of this divinity from "it's all in your head"?

(January 30, 2014 at 11:43 pm)Drich Wrote: Matter of fact by the admission of many of you, the Christianity I repersent is unknown to most of you. To the point that I have been labeled a heretic by atheists...

So again, how can the term confirmation bias apply if the result is counter the forgone conclusion of what many of you would identify as main stream Christianity.

Well, you must be talking to someone else... to me, christianity is all the same thing... mainstream or mega delusional rabit-hole christianity... they all believe in the existence of a divinity which showed up as a human and got nailed.
I go further and lump christianity with islam, hinduism, buddhism, and any other dead religion...all based on the unsubstantiated assumption that a person's personality/individuality/knowledge/wisdom goes on existing, somehow, after the death of the biological body.
This is wishful thinking... and anything that confirms this wishful thinking is relying on confirmation bias.

Quote:Confirmation bias looks for evidence that fits a forgone conclusion.

How does this definition fail to describe ask seek knock for the Holy Spirit? Because one need know nothing about God the Holy Spirit or Christianity, to receive the same direction and guidance found in the bible.

You have to make two foregone conclusions before a/s/k can work, according to your own words.
1. God exists
2. If you approach him the right way, he will prove his existence to you

If you a/s/k and you don't have at least the faith of a mustard seed, again according to you, you'll get only silence.

The fact that a/s/k can only work if you start out having faith makes it impossible for a/s/k to provide a legitimate means for someone without faith to acquire it. It only works if you've already decided it will. It is a deliberately-designed example of confirmation bias.

(January 30, 2014 at 3:23 pm)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote: I have to have faith for that to register to me as a legitimate question. How do you not get that.

Do you have the money to buy the car you want? would you like to have the money to buy the car you want?

What if I said I would give anyone who asks the money needed to buy the car they wanted, no questions asked. all they had to do is follow and do the 3 things i asked.

Then lets say 1/2 a dozen people got the cars they wanted, through my deal, talked about it and shared pics with you, but you did not believe i would give you this money for the car you wanted.

Does your purity to your method of reasoning prevent you from asking me a simple question? to even see what the conditions were? Or do you ask the question and follow the bread crumbs i leave you?

Quote:You seem obstinate in your insistence that I haven't.

Then it should be easy for you to tell me more about these bread crumbs i speak of. How did they manifest what did they look like?
How did you follow them? Know if you can not give me a legitmate description of your specific bread crumbs then understand my 'obstinance' is well founded.

Quote:Guess he doesn't want me trying to find him, then.

If you are too proud to even ask, then no He doesn't want you to find Him.

Quote:There is nothing intentional about my methodology. I don't dismiss faith in God because I don't want it, but because it has demonstrated itself to be useless to me as it has produced none of the promised results, not just for me personally, but for anything external to myself.

what were your promised results and what manifested?

Quote:Sufficient proof for me would be God putting in an appearance in such a way that his presence can be empirically verified by people who don't have pre-existing faith.

How would one empirically verify God? what would that process consist of?

Quote:I have faith only in things that are demonstrably true or likely to be true because they depend on demonstrable evidence.

That's not true at all. Do you remember our conversation on the stegasaurus? Do you believe that animal existed? based on what? based on ignorance, or rather the persumption that because accedamia says it is true, that this animal as postured in our museums existed that way. That is blind unverified faith. again this is that mustard seed God has given you. you can lie to yourself and say your beliefs are based on facts, when if fact you beliefs are based on faith in the popular understandings of man.. I say that because the facts are out there, but they are ignored in favor of popular theories/Faith.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-19254-pa...tegasaurus Start @ post 175 i leave a lot of facts that point to your faith in things like the stegosaurus.

Quote:That is astronomically less faith than is required to believe in something that none of my senses, logic or reason identifies as different from a fictional character.

Oh, the irony..

Quote:As I mentioned just before, you're mistaken. I did not choose to place my faith in science. Science works. It produces tangible results. And it does so whether or not I have faith in it.

and now after I've highlighted your FAITH in science?

Quote:Even so, that doesn't mean I have faith in all of science. There are plenty of hypotheses that I have no faith in, such as the multiverse hypothesis. Is it impossible? No more than God is. That isn't enough for me to make a positive statement of faith about it. I need solid results before I give it my faith.

What about dinosaurs? Evolution?
Faith in that?
The stegosaurus is one example of 'science' collecting bone scraps from several different digs and putting them together in the order they think they go in. Most of this was done in the mid to late 1800's.. Is your faith in science so strong that you do not question the work of men who took fossil fragements from several points across the continant or even the world, and then constructed an animal from said scrap piles?

Someone keeps bring up a word phrase when I said he should A/S/K.. I can't remember what it is.. It has something to do with having a vision or direction and then seeking evidence to fill or support this foregone conclusion.. It's unverfiable something.. Or maybe unfalsefiable maybefacts or theorys or something...

Maybe the one who keeps mis using this phrase will see an oppertunity here to lable your beliefs for me..

Quote:Your faith is belief without evidence. That is the faith that is completely missing in me, the faith I literally cannot have in anything at all.

Faith is belief without evidence. I do not sport a faith. None of us have to. All we need is the faith to A/S/K and we will be given the evidence to establish and maintain a relationship.

Quote:There is on thing in which I have faith without evidence, and it is the faith that makes me believe I'm on one side of the solipsistic barrier. That is faith without evidence. But, why not? For one, I have nothing to lose, and for another, it's still not the same as your faith, because I'm not going to sit here and insist that I'm certain about it. I'm not. I simply operate under the assumption because I've not been faced with a good reason not to.

Faith is not what I am selling here. Faith in God is the key that opens the flood gates to everything you will ever want or need in a personal interactive relationship.

Quote:It is as I suspected. You are too sure that you are correct to ever entertain the idea that you have interpreted everything incorrectly.

Indeed. It would be the same as The president asking you over for a dinner at the white house. You guys talk and have a few and really hit it off, then become long term friends..
In short you have a personal relationship with Him that lasts long after he is in office. Then another adminstration looks to smear your buddies name. they then proceed to gather benign evidence that really does not speak for or against anything your president buddy did. But the spin it to look like he was a bad president..

Now. given your relationship with your president buddy, is there anything they can say or do with this netural evidence that will change what you know of him? what if the whole country turns on him, will you ignore years of your friendship just because everyone else has faith in a very specific interpertation of 'evidence?' What if yoou knew they did not have a complete picture? What if the rest of the country wanted to hang your president friend, would you stand by him or step aside?

Quote:That is not true for me. You could be 100% correct. If you are, there should be evidence sufficient to satisfy the standards I have described.

There are. That is why people like me still exist. Why there are those who would be mamed or killed rather than give up their beliefs.

Quote:Your methods fall miserably short of that, though you appear incapable of being honest about the reasons why that is.

It's not my method brother. It is the ONLY One God offers.

He does so, because one must Humble himself before God. Humility is what God wants first. without it God will stay hidden from you.

---

(January 31, 2014 at 1:08 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(January 30, 2014 at 11:43 pm)Drich Wrote: If your in over your head at any point you do not need a reason to not respond, just don't respond. I don't hold it against you. Besides I'm occupied with the half a dozen different direction this thread is Going to even remember what specifically the tyre thing was actually about.

I had a reason to respond, that being that when one considers those groups that would have an unbiased approach to appraising a given text, apologists for that text aren't generally considered, there. It'd be like if you were fact checking an autobiography, and the only person you interviewed was the author; there's a bias there towards preserving the claims made in the text, irrespective of the actual truth of them.

And that, by the way, is not even taking into account the track record apologists have for lying out their asses.

Your approach is that of one who believes God will be static through out this process. This is not the case. When you do things right (Follow HIS instructions) He is the that will interact with you. Not me, the writter of your autobiography or anyone else. I'm not selling a religion here. I am trying to put you on a track that bring you directly before God. If God does not have the power or inclination to follow up on what He has promised then he is no god and not worthy of worship.

---

(January 31, 2014 at 1:52 am)rasetsu Wrote:


You follow up my pointing out that you are playing word games with more word games. That's really sad.

Again looking is not asking. If the keeper of many great words and works will not acknoweledge this by insisting this a word game, then my faith in the intelect of soceity will fade fast.

---

(January 31, 2014 at 2:21 am)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote: Then he needs to contact me.

and He will if you can follow His instructions.

Quote: I've already made the effort. You don't ask evidence to reveal itself. It's either there for me to find or it's not.

You made your own effort, you did not make the effort He told you, you must make. If you had you would still be making this effort.

Quote:There are no self-important reasons not to ask questions of a being that I have zero compelling reasons to believe exists. Perhaps you just completely forgot to read everything I said in my previous posts about this.

Questions is not the issue. God invites all questions even those others identify as hertical.
The Issue is inorder to receive an answer one must first Humble himself to God.

Quote:Telling me that I have to start out with faith is telling me that there's nothing to have faith in.

That is what religion says. Christ says something completely different. He told us if we have faith of a mustard seed and place it in Him, we will be able to move mountains of doubt.
The idea being these mountains being an insurmountable obstical.. (Your philosphy/reasoning) These mountains as you will not move on the basis of more faith. They move because you have the knoweledge and connection with God make them move.

Quote:You're telling me that it's not about confirming biases, but you're telling me that if I don't develop a bias, I'll never get any results.

What if someone in here/forums was a famous actor.. And that person over time confided in you and told you, and confirmed everything he told you to your complete satasification. He also said he would do this for anyone else you could bring to him that demonstrated they were also of good character.. for the purpose of inviting that select group to the oscars or something like that.. You ask what makes one worthy? He tells you, your friends must do 3 simple things.. and you try and get your friends to do the things he deemed 'worthy.'
You tell them all about him, but He will not confirm anything to the mob of resentful angry members here. Not until the do the three simply things he asked them to first do.

Your just one who carries a message. The actor set the conditions, and provides the evidence. Your friends if they want to be apart of what the actor offers must comply to his wishes. Just because he will not comply with a mob of angry people, does not mean you are or have set up a confirmation bias. for again He is the providing the evidence, at which point your friends can decide for themselves what they want to believe.

---

(January 31, 2014 at 3:30 am)Luckie Wrote:

(January 30, 2014 at 11:43 pm)Drich Wrote: Be glad too, but From what post did you get this?

My bad. It was a Rasetsu comment, not yours. What do you mean be glad?

You still working on responding to the rest of my long post, or is what you replied with all I got to work with here?

I would be happy/glad to explain anything I have said.

Still working