RE: A possibly new perspective on this thing that we know as God.
March 10, 2020 at 5:02 pm
(This post was last modified: March 10, 2020 at 5:05 pm by unityconversation.)
(March 10, 2020 at 4:42 pm)Fake Messiah Wrote:(March 10, 2020 at 3:03 pm)unityconversation Wrote: You said: "No real human individual is quite so irredeemably nasty as to combine all of the attributes of God: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. Although some do try."
Actually those are attributes of the animal.
The best way to "see" God, is to see the human being.
We are manifesting God all the time.
So you're not even trying to sound serious.
The only animal that is homophobic and racist is human and character of God from holy books.
Well I am being serious. You just don't believe that I am.
As far as you other sentence, all I have to say is: 'ok.'
(March 10, 2020 at 4:46 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Circular argument is circular.
Ok, that fine.
(March 10, 2020 at 4:51 pm)Abaddon_ire Wrote:(March 10, 2020 at 3:57 pm)unityconversation Wrote: <snip for brevity>
No. My replies to each one of your points was clearly delinated and identified point by point. I borked no quote marks. My replies to each point were perfectly clear as to what was quotation and what was my response.
Your inability to read is not my problem, particularly when I have taken the effort to write my response in native HTML code to ensure that the response was perfectly clear.
If you are to stupid to read, then my response is simple. Your ideas are shite and go fuck yourself with a large stick.
Is that more at your level of discourse?
Damn??? And they say religious people are hostile.
