Why would a perfect being make an imperfect world?

[Adventurer]

If you don't believe in a perfect god then this isn't aimed torwards you.

Why would a perfect being need/want to make an imperfect world with imperfect beings?

You have this individual who supposedly has no flaws at all, and he makes a flawed universe full of people who harm one another and who hate one another.

It doesn't make sense at all. Why would a perfect being make a imperfect world.

If your first answer was free will then if Free will is such a limiting factor on making a perfect creation why have it in the first place?  It seems like that in itself is a mistake, intentionally making your creation with a huge limiting factor.

Hi Socrates,

God is always perfect. That is the definition. If the world is perfect, then that is another way of saying the world to be godly.

God is perfect but it takes time for his creations to reach perfection. He starts with an imperfect creation and perfects that overtime. The world is far from perfect but may eventually reach perfection in God's vision. Creation doesn't work like magic in that nothing perfect suddenly comes into existence.

Another note: perfection is subjective. What is perfect to one person may be primitive to another. What is primitive to one person may be perfect to another. Individuals of diverse species have different organs and senses that have evolved and/or are designed to perceive things similarly and/or differently. Hence, perfection is clearly subjective.

If creations were perfect, why won't they be God themselves; in a scenario similair to what the ancient Greeks imagined?
Everybody would be God. 

The world is only fit for one God; if there were other "perfect" beings; Gods; then each would take what it made and go live alone; like the disgusting condition we have with countries and nations nowadays. Nationalism; Godly style. It would be Greek Mythology allover again.

We are created like this, because this is not life yet. This is a test ground. We will never be perfect, but we can be blessed in the mercy of God. To be perfect, is to have strength that of God's. If that so, then we would be immortal too. We would punch God perfectly, he would do the same, we would also punch each other perfectly. Immortal; we won't die.

I have no respect for a God like that.
Ancient Greeks weren't stupid when they threw their religion in the garbage; too.

This is a classic post that I've come across. Hence, I've given my kudos. Well done, AtlassS33!

[brewer]

[edit]

Hi Socrates,

God is always perfect. That is the definition. If the world is perfect, then that is another way of saying the world to be godly.

God is perfect but it takes time for his creations to reach perfection. He starts with an imperfect creation and perfects that overtime. The world is far from perfect but may eventually reach perfection in God's vision. Creation doesn't work like magic in that nothing perfect suddenly comes into existence.

Another note: perfection is subjective. What is perfect to one person may be primitive to another. What is primitive to one person may be perfect to another. Individuals of diverse species have different organs and senses that have evolved and/or are designed to perceive things similarly and/or differently. Hence, perfection is clearly subjective.

[edit]

bold mine

Why can't an entity/life form evolve to it's own level of perfection? Why does it take a god, for either existence or for change?

Edit: Thanks for joining in a conversation.

[Adventurer]

[edit]

Hi Socrates,

God is always perfect. That is the definition. If the world is perfect, then that is another way of saying the world to be godly.

God is perfect but it takes time for his creations to reach perfection. He starts with an imperfect creation and perfects that overtime. The world is far from perfect but may eventually reach perfection in God's vision. Creation doesn't work like magic in that nothing perfect suddenly comes into existence.

Another note: perfection is subjective. What is perfect to one person may be primitive to another. What is primitive to one person may be perfect to another. Individuals of diverse species have different organs and senses that have evolved and/or are designed to perceive things similarly and/or differently. Hence, perfection is clearly subjective.

[edit]

bold mine

Why can't an entity/life form evolve to it's own level of perfection? Why does it take a god, for either existence or for change?

Edit: Thanks for joining in a conversation.

It doesn't necessarily require God to exist, evolve or change. Otherwise, it is a creationist point of view.

[Godscreated]

---

You are to quick to judge others, I meant no disrespect I thought you were referring to bad memory due to age, my memory isn`t what it use to be because of my age and I adjust to it. I'm sorry for hurting your feelings but, maybe it would not have happened if you were to first explain it's a disability I can't read minds. Your language is quite distasteful to me yet I let it go to keep the conversation going.
I do know the difference between the Son of God and Jesus, none. At the baptism of Jesus the Father said, "this is My Son." This is a reference to the same person, Jesus the Son of God.

GC

---

As I've said, there is a difference between God the son and Jesus.  As YOU have said, God the son always was.  But Jesus was born.  He lived.  He died.  He was resurrected.  God the son cannot be tempted because he is God, only.  Jesus was tempted.  Yes, they are the same person in one sense, but in another they are not.

You're correct in saying they are one and the same, however for me there is no but to it. I'll explain as I go along. By the way what denomination did you grow up in?

Think of it like body and soul.  Let's assume that God created all the souls for all the people who ever would be during that six days.  They are off somewhere, waiting to be born as a human being.  Now let's say there is one soul waiting for a body.  We'll call him Jeff.  Jeff is a soul waiting to be put into a body.  That body hasn't been conceived yet.  When it is, at the appropriate time, God will put Jeff the soul into the body and Jeff will eventually be born as a brand new person, live his life and die.  So did Jeff always exist or was Jeff born, live to be 83 years old and die a grandfather?

Something you need to know about me l do not do what ifs most of the time and l can't do it here. God did not create all the spirits of man at the beginning. I understand more than one prophet said God knew him before he was in the womb. This is in reference to God's omnipresence and knowledge of all things for all time. This was a statement by the prophet to honor God. There is nothing in Scripture that says God created all souls that will ever be during the six day creation period. When Jeff was conceived he was given a soul and as Paul says, "to be absent from the body is to be with God." Meaning when Jeff's body died Jeff went to be with God. The NT makes it quite clear that the body is only a shell for Jeff or any of us to reside in here and now. Jesus said, "what good does it do for a man to gain the whole world yet lose his soul." Jesus is more interested in saving the soul, why, because that is us the conscious us. The body died and rots away. It's true that at the second coming each of us will receive a new body but, will it be the same one we had? What does all this mean, that what lives inside this body of ours is who we are, the body doesn't matter except to other humans.

 ......But Jeff the soul is different than Jeff the man.  Being Jeff the man changes Jeff the soul.  Jeff the soul, before Jeff the man, was innocent.  He had never been tempted.  He had never sinned. 

As I pointed out above Jeff the soul is Jeff, the body is present to house the soul, the body is there for this physical world. Jeff doesn't need his body to be Jeff. When Jeff was born he was a sinner by birth. So how could that be if Jeff the soul had never sinned.

When Jeff the man was born his trials began and Jeff the soul was changed by life in flesh.  Before that Jeff the soul was eternal and unchanging.  If judgement had happened before Jeff the soul got a body then Jeff the soul goes straight to Heaven.  After he got a body and lived his life, only then is it up to him.

Now you are outside biblical doctrine, Jeff could never be innocent nor eternal. Again outside biblical doctrine, Jeff can't go to heaven by your own admittance Jeff hasn't existed yet, your description in the what if idea, you said he would have to be born of flesh first.

A very straightforward case can be made that, without a body, a soul never changes.  That's why there is no forgiveness after death.  That's why your place in the afterlife will be eternal.  I don't think you would argue with the statement that no soul cast into Hell will ever attain redemption and a place in Heaven, just as no soul in Heaven will ever fall and be cast into Hell.  The soul, without flesh, is eternal and unchanging.  It is only through flesh that the spirit can change, be tested, be tempted, be tried.

The body and soul never physically existed until born into this world. After death you say the soul can't change and you are right. The chance for redemption of the soul is lost after death. You're also correct in saying that temptation only comes when the body and soul are together as one. When the soul returns to the spiritual realm all is over concerning ones eternal destination.

And that is the difference between God the son and Jesus.  Jesus was tempted for 40 days.  Could the Holy Spirit be tempted?  Could God be tempted?  No and no.  Could God the son, without the flesh, be tempted?  No. 

You're right the Trinity can not be tempted but, we are speaking of the God who is above all temptation. Jesus had to be tempted and had to be able to fail so that Satan could not accuse God of stacking the deck. God the Son came to reside in a body of flesh so He could be tempted in the flesh to be the perfect sacrifice for man. God the Son laid down all His powers to come and live as a man, scripture tells us this. Jesus received His power from the Father, Jesus could not have fail if all the Son's powers had come with Him. Jesus also used the scriptures to rebuke Satan, the word was more powerful than the most powerful being ever created and why, because Christ is the word.

Could Jesus have failed the test?  Was it possible for him to fail?  Yes.  If it weren't possible then his trial would have been pointless.  Flesh made him weak.  Flesh made him different.  Flesh made it possible to tempt him.  He fasted for 40 days.  Is that a problem for a god?  No.  They don't eat.  But it is a problem for a man, and a big one.  Is a god tempted to have sex?  No.  Was Jesus?  Absolutely.  If his parts worked and biology worked then as it does now he was absolutely tempted to have sex.  Can this world offer ANYTHING which might have the most remote chance of ever tempting a god, ESPECIALLY the god who made it all?  No.  But this world can certainly tempt a man.

Yes, I've already agreed that Jesus was temptable and there had to be the possibility of failure. That temptation had to come while He resided in a body of flesh but, if He had not laid down his powers in heaven He could not fail, essentially it was laying down his powers that made him susceptible to sin. Just because the Son of God came to live in a body of flesh and suffer the weaknesses of the flesh doesn't negate the fact He was the Son of God. As I stated in my last post, at Jesus baptism the Father said this is my Son. There's no getting around this fact that God's Son resided in a fleshly body and was called Jesus. I can't understand how you can argue that the Son of God was two different beings, especially when the scriptures do not say that.

Getting back to why we're even having this stupid argument, you said that "free will" is the choice to accept, specifically, Christ or reject him and that has always been the choice.  You are wrong about that.  You just are.  First, the term "free will" is a lot more general than you are making it, but let's put that aside and just look at "accepting Christ".  Why Christ?  Why would you have to accept a specific, single aspect of God only?  Isn't the choice really to accept "God"?  The Christ was merely a pathway to God as a whole, not the end-all, worship only this part of God.  The Christ is not a specific object of worship, just one of three aspects of God.  It is God, as a whole, which we are required to accept.  That is why there was no mention of accepting Christ or God the son in the Old Testament, just accepting God. 

My statement was this and still is, the only free will "we" have is to accept Jesus for who He is, the Son of God. When you accept Jesus as God's Son you are accepting the entire Godhead. GOD is the Trinity, the Trinity was involved in creation, in dealing with the fall and bringing salvation to a lost world. Maybe there's something you do not understand about the Trinity, there is an order to it, not in the sense of one is above the others, more in the order that there is a chain of command. You will have to read and study the NT to see it but it is there. It goes like this an order that we always speak when we refer to the Trinity, God the Father to whom God the Son is obedient to, God the Son whom the Holy Spirit is always obedient to. It's the way our families are to be. No one in the family is more important than any other member, the wife is obedient to the father's the children are to be obedient to the mother and father. Unfortunately our families are not like the Trinity, everything the Trinity does in their relationship is from a perfect love.

The Christ is not special.  It's not God's best part.  You can't accept only the Christ but not the other two parts.  This was NEVER the choice.  It isn't even the choice now.  The Christ is merely the path by which you get to God as a whole.  You were wrong with that statement.

Without Christ there is no forgiveness of sin, without forgiveness of sin there is no redemption and without redemption there is no salvation, this is repeated throughout the NT. This is how important Christ is, the Father made it this way. All three in the Godhead are just as important as the other and we worship all three as GOD. Each one functions in their own agreed upon way with us so that we may be redeemed and worship our GOD.

GC

PS I have a friend with Alzheimer's and yes it is scary, I believe everyone has a fright about it. Never meant to disrespect you.

[Asmodee]

You're correct in saying they are one and the same, however for me there is no but to it. I'll explain as I go along. By the way what denomination did you grow up in?

Pentecostal.

There is nothing in Scripture that says God created all souls that will ever be during the six day creation period. When Jeff was conceived he was given a soul...

That was an analogy of what I was talking about, not a claim.  And there is nothing in scripture which says it isn't true, so maybe let's not just pretend it's absolutely not true so that we don't have to think about the analogy.  In fact, an argument can be made that when God "created man", creating all those souls is what the Bible was talking about.  I'm not saying that's true, I am saying you don't know it's not.

And there is also nothing in scripture that says when Jeff is given a soul, yet it doesn't stop you from claiming right here that it was "at conception".

As I pointed out above Jeff the soul is Jeff, the body is present to house the soul, the body is there for this physical world. Jeff doesn't need his body to be Jeff. When Jeff was born he was a sinner by birth. So how could that be if Jeff the soul had never sinned.

Again you are missing the point.  Instead of just dismissing what I said, consider the analogy I gave.

Now you are outside biblical doctrine, Jeff could never be innocent nor eternal. Again outside biblical doctrine, Jeff can't go to heaven by your own admittance Jeff hasn't existed yet, your description in the what if idea, you said he would have to be born of flesh first.

And so are you fully half the time, including right here.  And I have no idea what you're talking about here because I didn't say any of that that I'm aware of.

The body and soul never physically existed until born into this world...

You JUST chastised me for being outside of Biblical doctrine.  What verses in the Bible say when souls are made or injected into bodies?  I'll give you a hint.  The answer is "The Bible makes no mention of the claim you just made."

You're right the Trinity can not be tempted but, we are speaking of the God who is above all temptation. Jesus had to be tempted and had to be able to fail so that Satan could not accuse God of stacking the deck. God the Son came to reside in a body of flesh so He could be tempted in the flesh to be the perfect sacrifice for man. God the Son laid down all His powers to come and live as a man, scripture tells us this. Jesus received His power from the Father, Jesus could not have fail if all the Son's powers had come with Him. Jesus also used the scriptures to rebuke Satan, the word was more powerful than the most powerful being ever created and why, because Christ is the word.

Then this is where the Bible starts to contradict itself.  You would be hard pressed to deny that a soul changes only when in a body.  A baby that died a thousand years ago is still as sin-free as it was then.  The soul is unchanged from that day.  And a thousand years into being in Heaven, that soul will still be unchanged.  EVERY soul has a CHANCE for redemption.  No soul is guaranteed redemption or damnation, it is what we do, and ONLY what we do while we have a body that determines that.

Now take that to Jesus.  God is never changing.  God cannot be tempted.  But God in a body can be tempted.  By your words it had to be possible for him to fail.  If he had failed, would he still be God?  What would have happened to God the son if Jesus had failed his temptation?  There would have been some change to God the son.  God the son would no longer be perfect and spotless.  Because in flesh the spirit can change.  Yet NOTHING changed in 33 years of being wrapped in flesh?  Unlikely unless it was impossible, but you said it was possible, so it is very unlikely the spirit wasn't changed.  God the son, Jesus, new and improved God the son.

Yes, I've already agreed that Jesus was temptable and there had to be the possibility of failure. That temptation had to come while He resided in a body of flesh but, if He had not laid down his powers in heaven He could not fail, essentially it was laying down his powers that made him susceptible to sin. Just because the Son of God came to live in a body of flesh and suffer the weaknesses of the flesh doesn't negate the fact He was the Son of God. As I stated in my last post, at Jesus baptism the Father said this is my Son. There's no getting around this fact that God's Son resided in a fleshly body and was called Jesus. I can't understand how you can argue that the Son of God was two different beings, especially when the scriptures do not say that.

Where does the Bible say he laid down his powers in Heaven?  Why is it YOU get to diverge from what the Bible says and draw on what your beliefs outside of the Bible say, but I do not?  I remember a Bible where Jesus very much "had powers".

My statement was this and still is, the only free will "we" have is to accept Jesus for who He is, the Son of God. When you accept Jesus as God's Son you are accepting the entire Godhead. GOD is the Trinity, the Trinity was involved in creation, in dealing with the fall and bringing salvation to a lost world. Maybe there's something you do not understand about the Trinity, there is an order to it, not in the sense of one is above the others, more in the order that there is a chain of command. You will have to read and study the NT to see it but it is there. It goes like this an order that we always speak when we refer to the Trinity, God the Father to whom God the Son is obedient to, God the Son whom the Holy Spirit is always obedient to. It's the way our families are to be. No one in the family is more important than any other member, the wife is obedient to the father's the children are to be obedient to the mother and father. Unfortunately our families are not like the Trinity, everything the Trinity does in their relationship is from a perfect love.

That statement is wrong.  Jew 3,000 years ago would have laughed at you for this statement.

And I'll take my imperfect love over your trinity's perfect love any day.  I once had a Catholic trying to explain to me why Hell existed.  He asked me, "When your children misbehave, don't you punish them?"  I was flabbergasted by such a stupid question and immediately responded, "Not by lighting them on fire!"

PS I have a friend with Alzheimer's and yes it is scary, I believe everyone has a fright about it. Never meant to disrespect you.

Yeah, I know.  Thanks.

---

So self diagnosed and claiming that you meet the requirements of the ADA with no other documentation or supporting evidence. It does not work that way. I won't take your word for it. I'm not quite sure why you feel you should be able to play the ADA or disability card. Pity? Excuse? I consider it an offense to those I know who are disabled. Therefore I consider it an offense to me. 

If you say you have a poor memory, fine, I'll accept that. If you claim that it rises to the level to be considered a disability by society (not just you) then you'll have to put up or shut up.

Yes, failure to produce my medical records on your demand certainly proves I don't have any.  And surely you are well within your rights to ask for my most personal information.  Why would any person care that everyone here knew their private medical information?  Hell, who wouldn't want everyone to know they had dementia or Alzheimer?  That's the kind of thing you just run through the streets telling everyone because it's not like the words associated with brain disorders carry negative stereotypes.  That's why I really, REALLY wish I was paranoid schizophrenic!  I really think it would help me get more babysitting jobs.  Fucking moron.

I don't give a fuck if some argumentative prick on the Internet believes me or not.  News flash, jackass.  You don't have a right to not be offended.  Which is good for you because what you did was INCREDIBLY offensive.  But I get it.  You're arrogant and not that bright.  It's not your fault.  You just sincerely do not understand why someone would choose not to share a medical diagnosis for brain disorder with strangers on the Internet, or why asking makes you the biggest fucking prick I've ever talked to.  Hey, and it's also okay to walk up to people in wheelchairs and demand to see their legs so you can make sure they've really atrophied and they are not just seeking pity or using it as an excuse.  That's perfectly acceptable.

So yeah, it does fucking work that way.  You take me at my word or you don't.  Why don't you go ask those you know who are disabled, "What's wrong with you?  Did a doctor tell you that or are you 'self diagnosed', because if you're self diagnosed you're not really disabled, you know."  See how long it takes a few disabled "friends" to kick your fucking ass.  And hey, let me know how that goes.

This is why I hate too many atheists gathering in one place.  We tend to be smug and used to arguing.  I know what this really is.  "Hey everyone!  Look how good an atheist I am!  I just caught someone making a claim he is unable to prove.  He says he's unwilling to produce his medical records and that they're none of my business, but that means unable because he doesn't have them and I totally proved what a kickass atheist I am by being a disrespectful ass and demanding proof!"  What this really is is pathetic.

By the way, I'm not sure you really have "disabled friends".  What are their names and medical diagnoses?  Because to me this sounds a little too close to the Republican "black friend" claim that I always found so dubious.  Why would you make this claim?  Pity?  Excuse?  You're just a prick?

[brewer]

So self diagnosed and claiming that you meet the requirements of the ADA with no other documentation or supporting evidence. It does not work that way. I won't take your word for it. I'm not quite sure why you feel you should be able to play the ADA or disability card. Pity? Excuse? I consider it an offense to those I know who are disabled. Therefore I consider it an offense to me. 

If you say you have a poor memory, fine, I'll accept that. If you claim that it rises to the level to be considered a disability by society (not just you) then you'll have to put up or shut up.

Yes, failure to produce my medical records on your demand certainly proves I don't have any.  And surely you are well within your rights to ask for my most personal information.  Why would any person care that everyone here knew their private medical information?  Hell, who wouldn't want everyone to know they had dementia or Alzheimer?  That's the kind of thing you just run through the streets telling everyone because it's not like the words associated with brain disorders carry negative stereotypes.  That's why I really, REALLY wish I was paranoid schizophrenic!  I really think it would help me get more babysitting jobs.  Fucking moron.

I don't give a fuck if some argumentative prick on the Internet believes me or not.  News flash, jackass.  You don't have a right to not be offended.  Which is good for you because what you did was INCREDIBLY offensive.  But I get it.  You're arrogant and not that bright.  It's not your fault.  You just sincerely do not understand why someone would choose not to share a medical diagnosis for brain disorder with strangers on the Internet, or why asking makes you the biggest fucking prick I've ever talked to.  Hey, and it's also okay to walk up to people in wheelchairs and demand to see their legs so you can make sure they've really atrophied and they are not just seeking pity or using it as an excuse.  That's perfectly acceptable.

So yeah, it does fucking work that way.  You take me at my word or you don't.  Why don't you go ask those you know who are disabled, "What's wrong with you?  Did a doctor tell you that or are you 'self diagnosed', because if you're self diagnosed you're not really disabled, you know."  See how long it takes a few disabled "friends" to kick your fucking ass.  And hey, let me know how that goes.

This is why I hate too many atheists gathering in one place.  We tend to be smug and used to arguing.  I know what this really is.  "Hey everyone!  Look how good an atheist I am!  I just caught someone making a claim he is unable to prove.  He says he's unwilling to produce his medical records and that they're none of my business, but that means unable because he doesn't have them and I totally proved what a kickass atheist I am by being a disrespectful ass and demanding proof!"  What this really is is pathetic.

By the way, I'm not sure you really have "disabled friends".  What are their names and medical diagnoses?  Because to me this sounds a little too close to the Republican "black friend" claim that I always found so dubious.  Why would you make this claim?  Pity?  Excuse?  You're just a prick?

Quite the self indulgent entitlement rant. You self identify, therefore you are, and we all have to accept. Well, good for you, that should take you far in life. 

Me thinks thou dost protest to much. Why would you go over the top in your emotional responses. And then wish harm to come to me. Because I'm correct? 

I never requested medical records, but OK, you continue to obsess on that. I believe I asked for supporting information. You threw a hissy fit. Nice diversion tactic for something I now don't believe exists. 

No disabled friends, disabled associates. In the past, disabled clients, medical clients. 

I may be a prick at times, but I consider you a fake. A dishonest poser.

[Asmodee]

Quite the self indulgent entitlement rant. You self identify, therefore you are, and we all have to accept. Well, good for you, that should take you far in life. 

Me thinks thou dost protest to much. Why would you go over the top in your emotional responses. And then wish harm to come to me. Because I'm correct? 

I never requested medical records, but OK, you continue to obsess on that. I believe I asked for supporting information. You threw a hissy fit. Nice diversion tactic for something I now don't believe exists. 

No disabled friends, disabled associates. In the past, disabled clients, medical clients. 

I may be a prick at times, but I consider you a fake. A dishonest poser.

You can look up my posts to see how "dishonest" I am, bitch.  In a conversation not that long ago the discussion had ended and I brought it back just to add information which did not help my position so that I didn't leave any possible dishonesty hanging out there on my part.  I've shown my colors here and I've gone out of my way to weaken my own position just to make sure that I wasn't misleading anyone.  So pretend to know all you want.  Just look up my posts and you'll see whether I value truth or winning more.

And I did misspeak about something.  The ADA does not apply here.  It covers only employment.  However, a medical diagnosis is one of THREE ways to qualify for protection under the ADA, so you also didn't know what the fuck you've been arguing about.

And yeah, I threw a fit.  I was pissed.  You asked for personal medical information, something you had no business asking.  It was rude and incredibly disrespectful.  It was no different than asking someone in a wheelchair to prove they really couldn't walk.

As I said, I really don't give a fuck what you think of me.  Think whatever you like.  I stand behind what I said and my record here speaks for itself, if you care to check my history.  In case you're interested, and I'm sure you're not because you're more interested in winning an argument than any facts, here is a little bit of that history.

My real entrance onto this forum starts with a post in the Introduction section that says something along the lines of, "I'm not new here, apparently" and goes on to say that I have no memory of signing up, I think it was, about 2 years prior, nor any of the posts I had clearly made.  I have a bad memory.  This has been established from the beginning.  I am telling you it is very bad, to the point where it scares me sometimes, where I have a real fear of one day not recognizing my loved ones.  Accept that or don't.  That is the truth.

To see how very dishonest I am you just have to look into this thread where I posted requested information (a reasonable request, I might add), which eroded my position, AFTER the conversation was over, just so that I wouldn't "leave the conversation with a potentially misleading or deceptive statement out there on my part."  Yeah, I'm a real dishonest fuck all right.  You got the hell out of me there.

Here's what happened, from my perspective.  You called me a liar.  You suggested that my problem was not a disability, not disabling, no big deal.  You pretended to know more about it than I did.  You stated that I was looking for pity or making excuses.  Why, oh, why did I fly off the handle like I did?  It's quite the mystery.  You were a pompous ass about it, breaking into a conversation which had nothing to do with you just to point out that you thought I was a liar.  Because me saying I had a disability offended you unless and until I proved to you that I do?  Do you SERIOUSLY not see what an offensive prick you were about it?

I can only guess that you don't think my particular issue should be labeled a "disability".  Well, it is.  Look it up yourself.  Is it disabling enough at this point to seek government aid or legal protection based on that disability?  I doubt it.  I'm still able to work so I've never tried to get anything from anyone for it.  But just because I'm not too disabled to work does not mean I do not have a disability and, if you believe my memory is very bad, worse than is normal, then all you have to do is a little research to see that very much IS a disability.  I think the issue here is that you don't respect it as such because it's not one you can see.  You think I'm trying to get something or some shit, and I don't seem disabled to you, so I must not be.  Well, you're not disabled once you've asked for something and gotten it.  You're disabled once you have a disability.  There are levels.  Some qualify you for some benefits and protections, some do not.  A disability is what it is regardless its severity.

So yeah, I went off.  You were incredibly insensitive and disrespectful.  You were offended that I MIGHT not have a disability, so in response you were incredibly offensive to someone who MIGHT have a disability.  So after I said that I had been getting shit about it my whole life and it was really starting to wear on me, guess what, you give me shit about it.  It was a dick move and I am legitimately afraid of what my future holds, so yeah, I'm a little sensitive about it, as I said RIGHT before you piled on, called me a liar, said that I was an attention seeker, etc.  I don't want your pity.  A little human decency would be nice, though.

[brewer]

You can look up my posts to see how "dishonest" I am, bitch.  In a conversation not that long ago the discussion had ended and I brought it back just to add information which did not help my position so that I didn't leave any possible dishonesty hanging out there on my part.  I've shown my colors here and I've gone out of my way to weaken my own position just to make sure that I wasn't misleading anyone.  So pretend to know all you want.  Just look up my posts and you'll see whether I value truth or winning more.

And I did misspeak about something.  The ADA does not apply here.  It covers only employment.  However, a medical diagnosis is one of THREE ways to qualify for protection under the ADA, so you also didn't know what the fuck you've been arguing about.

And yeah, I threw a fit.  I was pissed.  You asked for personal medical information, something you had no business asking.  It was rude and incredibly disrespectful.  It was no different than asking someone in a wheelchair to prove they really couldn't walk.

As I said, I really don't give a fuck what you think of me.  Think whatever you like.  I stand behind what I said and my record here speaks for itself, if you care to check my history.  In case you're interested, and I'm sure you're not because you're more interested in winning an argument than any facts, here is a little bit of that history.

My real entrance onto this forum starts with a post in the Introduction section that says something along the lines of, "I'm not new here, apparently" and goes on to say that I have no memory of signing up, I think it was, about 2 years prior, nor any of the posts I had clearly made.  I have a bad memory.  This has been established from the beginning.  I am telling you it is very bad, to the point where it scares me sometimes, where I have a real fear of one day not recognizing my loved ones.  Accept that or don't.  That is the truth.

To see how very dishonest I am you just have to look into this thread where I posted requested information (a reasonable request, I might add), which eroded my position, AFTER the conversation was over, just so that I wouldn't "leave the conversation with a potentially misleading or deceptive statement out there on my part."  Yeah, I'm a real dishonest fuck all right.  You got the hell out of me there.

Here's what happened, from my perspective.  You called me a liar.  You suggested that my problem was not a disability, not disabling, no big deal.  You pretended to know more about it than I did.  You stated that I was looking for pity or making excuses.  Why, oh, why did I fly off the handle like I did?  It's quite the mystery.  You were a pompous ass about it, breaking into a conversation which had nothing to do with you just to point out that you thought I was a liar.  Because me saying I had a disability offended you unless and until I proved to you that I do?  Do you SERIOUSLY not see what an offensive prick you were about it?

I can only guess that you don't think my particular issue should be labeled a "disability".  Well, it is.  Look it up yourself.  Is it disabling enough at this point to seek government aid or legal protection based on that disability?  I doubt it.  I'm still able to work so I've never tried to get anything from anyone for it.  But just because I'm not too disabled to work does not mean I do not have a disability and, if you believe my memory is very bad, worse than is normal, then all you have to do is a little research to see that very much IS a disability.  I think the issue here is that you don't respect it as such because it's not one you can see.  You think I'm trying to get something or some shit, and I don't seem disabled to you, so I must not be.  Well, you're not disabled once you've asked for something and gotten it.  You're disabled once you have a disability.  There are levels.  Some qualify you for some benefits and protections, some do not.  A disability is what it is regardless its severity.

So yeah, I went off.  You were incredibly insensitive and disrespectful.  You were offended that I MIGHT not have a disability, so in response you were incredibly offensive to someone who MIGHT have a disability.  So after I said that I had been getting shit about it my whole life and it was really starting to wear on me, guess what, you give me shit about it.  It was a dick move and I am legitimately afraid of what my future holds, so yeah, I'm a little sensitive about it, as I said RIGHT before you piled on, called me a liar, said that I was an attention seeker, etc.  I don't want your pity.  A little human decency would be nice, though.

I didn't say all your posts were dishonest, just the post about being disabled and then siting ADA and some other entity (maybe DSS?). 

I accept your misspeaking about the ADA. I think I asked for a medical diagnosis and did not directly tie that to the ADA. I could be wrong, not going back to look.

Yes, it is different from seeing a person in a wheelchair. The wheelchair (any assistance device) provides a visual conformation. It also indicates that they have sought out assistance for their condition. That can't be done on the internet. That's why I asked for information. 

The "I'm not new here apparently" proves nothing. I've forgot more sites where I've joined/had a login than I care to admit. I'm not blaming a bad memory but a selective memory. We all have that. You stopped participating, the memory faded. Over 2 years. That is not unique or for most people even a concern. I will concede that it is possibly an indicator. 

If it scares you so much, have you sought out professional help or assistance? This is along the line of my original query. If you have not, then I have to question why not if your memory is so troubling and disabling as you say.  

I didn't call you a liar (until my last post) but questioned your "disability" claim as you seemed to play the disability card in defense of a post. You neglected to support your claim and went on to attack the question. That is a tell.

Believe it or not I don't need to look anything up. I received plenty of mental health education in graduate school and continue to educate myself on a weekly/monthly basis. Although no longer practicing/working, that was part of my career and I keep up. I think I've spent a lot more time around people with mental disabilities in my life than you. 

Again, self identifying as disabled does not cut it. If it did, SSDI/insurance companies would be bankrupt. It is a determination made by "non self" entities in our society (SSDI, employers, doctors, assistance providers, insurance companies, .......). I don't doubt that you feel that you have an issue with your memory. I do question if your issue/condition rises to the level to be considered a disability by someone other than you. 

Now your claiming you "might" have a disability. That was not your initial claim. I might also. I've smoked for 40+ years, I might have cancer or emphysema. I'm an alcoholic so I might have liver failure. I have a trashed out left knee and lower back so that might be a disability. Do I claim one for any of those conditions, no.

If you don't want to be questioned, don't play the "I have a disability" card. Three posts/rants (maybe more) claiming "disability" in light of no support for the claim, in my book is offensive to the disabled and qualifies as dishonest. 

I still question your motives.

[Godscreated]

Take it easy you two, for goodness sake it's not an earth ending catastrophe for either of you. Shake hands hands and play nice.
@ Asmodee, I got the crud and do not feel like doing a long responded tonight, will get to it when l feel better.

GC