Define God

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
What does that have to do with anything?

So, your claim is that what I wrote has no semantics. Can you prove this claim with some math logic, if you can?
Becides, why don't you call the things with their real names ... and as they are. Life would be much more simple, incl. yours.
Example: I don't understand what you are talking about and/or I don't like what you are saying would be O.K.
"Thou shalt not bear false witness" ... concealing your cross-cultural misunderstanding of the world

What in hell are you talking about?

Frank Apisa wrote:

... first keep one god before all others ...

You don't even have a definition of God, but comment with ease on any theme. Structuring the priorities in life ... and in morality is in no way 'first keep one god before all others'.
When one misunderstands 'the point' (the problem) all the interpretations and comments become irrelevant ... unfortunately.

[/quote]

And what in hell are you talking about here.

Make some sense...and I will respond.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

It's about greed and profit.

Suppose for a moment, you silly moocow, it was not about greed and profit.

Make it a brief moment or else your hair might turn white and the supermarket shelves be cleared out before you got there.

Like greed and profit so also sexual activity. It is not the concept; it is how it is exercised. Both need rules and legislators are unable to regulate normal sexual activity because the House and the Senate would refuse to consider the matter let alone have a vote on it. Even the rules that have been legislated concerning greed and profit are somewhat suspect but they do exist and probably do prevent the more crude expressions of this natural propensity. Most of the time at least.

What if no rules were in operation in the rumpy-pumpy arena? Which, as I just showed, is what is inevitable if the Church doesn't provide them. It's all very well being liberal minded and all that but what if everybody catches the disease. Which it is very easy to do on account of the pleasures of displaying one's compassion and concern without a very great deal of effort after having been well rehearsed by the elite of the liberal hierarchy. It's very catching. And progressive. Can lead to 15 years in a north Russian jail if gets bad.

Compare a free for all in greed and profit with a free for all in the romping.

The Reps would vanish. The Dems would split. Competing in liberal minded ideas. The Really Liberal Democratic Party and the Really Really Liberal Democratic Party. The extremists of the latter being known as the DOGGIES.

0 Replies

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

Mankind was created to live indefinitely.

Where did you get that idea.

In Genesis 3:22 Moses wrote:

22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

According to the tale, it is the tree of life which provided ever lasting life.

1 Reply

@mesquite,

neologist wrote:

Mankind was created to live indefinitely.

mesquite wrote:

Where did you get that idea.

In Genesis 3:22 Moses wrote:
22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

According to the tale, it is the tree of life which provided ever lasting life.

Are you saying that everlasting life was denied to Adam and Eve because of their sin?

Exactly!

BTW, hi Skeeter!

1 Reply

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

Mankind was created to live indefinitely.

neologist wrote:

Are you saying that everlasting life was denied to Adam and Eve because of their sin?

Exactly!

BTW, hi Skeeter!

I am saying that ever lasting life had nothing to do with the way they were created.

What sin. They did not know about sin or good or evil so the tale says.

Hi Neo.

2 Replies

@mesquite,

"Don't eat the apple" is about the most stupid reason to harm humans with all the sufferings man has experienced since god created man.

I know it's fiction, but that's a story that so many humans believe in!

1 Reply

@mesquite,

Have you been talking to Frank?
That's what he says.
I kind of always figured they were created with a conscience.
Otherwise, why cover themselves. . .. . .?

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

"Don't eat the apple" is about the most stupid reason to harm humans with all the sufferings man has experienced"

Everything depends on what 'the apple' is, and what does 'eating the apple' might mean.
Suppose 'the apple' are the resources of the Earth (including the energy resources), in this case 'don't eat the apple' may mean "don't exhaust your resources ... and chances for survival ... to ground zero" (for you don't know what you are doing).
Let's take another assumption.
If 'the apple' is the average margin of fertility that we can afford as species, in that case "don't eat the apple" may mean 'don't exceed the maximum allowable margin' (for you don't know what you are doing).
... and 'men are intended to live forever' may mean 'the human species has been designed & developed (just don't ask me by whom) to jump over the constraints of the physical world and to achieve immortality ... of the species, not of the egocentric interpretations of the things'.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Do you know? Tell me the correct answer. This is one of those symbolic lessons of god that's all bull **** and no content.

A hundred people will probably come up with 100 different answers. Where's the "real" lesson? If you eat an orange, is that a sin too? How about plums?

BTW, apples is one of my least favorite fruit. Am I a candidate for heaven? Mr. Green

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

What in hell are you talking about?

1. This intensifier 'what in hell' notwithstanding that is conveys brilliantly your dipleasure and confusion (on the issue of cross-cultural misunderstanding I suppose) does not add any semantics to the statement (in this case to the question 'What you are talking about?'). Why don't you simply ask: What do you mean by 'cross-cultural misunderstanding'?
2. O.K. You don't understand what I am talking about, but do you understand what you are talking about?
For example:

Frank Apisa wrote:

What does that have to do with anything?

Do you know what you are asking with that question? You are asking whether my assumption (about the religious interpretations) has any interpretation and any relations with any language concepts, in other words, does it have any semantics.
By striving to use emotional amplifiers to add some extra semantics you are actually changing the statement.
What the hell and what in hell you think you are doing?

3 Replies

@Herald,

Your ad hominems only proves you are unable to address Frank's "real" questions.

Emotional or not, the message is clear. Most people who understand English have no problem with understanding Frank's posts.

Why don't you just answer his question rather than diverting it to Frank's emotional state?

BTW, just because some of us use foul language or statements that may seem emotional to some people really isn't. It's composed that way to make a point.

When I tell someone to "go to hell," I'm not saying it with any emotion. Most people understand that kind of statement as rhetorical. Ignorant and stupid get that from me all the time.

0 Replies

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

Have you been talking to Frank?

Nope.

neologist wrote:

That's what he says.

I guess he can also read a simple tale with comprehension. Not a difficult feat.

neologist wrote:

I kind of always figured they were created with a conscience.
Otherwise, why cover themselves. . .. . .?

They didn't ...

In Genesis 2:25 Moses wrote:

And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

until they had eaten from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

In Genesis 3:7 Moses wrote:

And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

The conscience came from eating the fruit of the tree.
[/quote]

2 Replies

@mesquite,

mesquite wrote:

The conscience came from eating the fruit of the tree.

Are you saying if they had not eaten the fruit, then, according to the story they would never have died and they would be naked today?

Then what if they decide to go skiing?

1 Reply

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

mesquite wrote:
The conscience came from eating the fruit of the tree.
Are you saying if they had not eaten the fruit, then, according to the story they would never have died and they would be naked today?

They would not think nakedness was wrong because they would have no sense of right or wrong. In order to not die they would have to eat from the tree of life.

neologist wrote:

Then what if they decide to go skiing?

Nothing in the tale would preclude them from wearing appropriate weather protection.

0 Replies

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

Have you been talking to Frank?
That's what he says.
I kind of always figured they were created with a conscience.
Otherwise, why cover themselves. . .. . .?

They didn't...until after eating the fruit. The story is about a god asking two humans he created not to find out about the difference between good and evil.

It must be very difficult to try to seem reasonable, Neo...when the evidence in this case is so stark.

0 Replies

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
What in hell are you talking about?

1. This intensifier 'what in hell' notwithstanding that is conveys brilliantly your dipleasure and confusion (on the issue of cross-cultural misunderstanding I suppose) does not add any semantics to the statement (in this case to the question 'What you are talking about?'). Why don't you simply ask: What do you mean by 'cross-cultural misunderstanding'?
2. O.K. You don't understand what I am talking about, but do you understand what you are talking about?
For example:

Frank Apisa wrote:
What does that have to do with anything?

Do you know what you are asking with that question? You are asking whether my assumption (about the religious interpretations) has any interpretation and any relations with any language concepts, in other words, does it have any semantics.
By striving to use emotional amplifiers to add some extra semantics you are actually changing the statement.
What the hell and what in hell you think you are doing?

What are you talking about, Herald. If you finally ask something...or actually make a coherent statement, I will respond.

0 Replies

Thank you Mesquite and ci.

I read your responses after I responded to Herald's latest post.

If he clears up what he is trying to ask...I think we all will respond to him.

0 Replies

@Herald,

Quote:

If he clears up what he is trying to ask...I think we all will respond to him.

There you go Herald--wrong-footed again and with such simple words too. Shame on you. And the "evidence is so stark". It's in the Bible.

What's the scientific explanation of the sudden adoption of fig leaves?

1 Reply

Skeeter and Frank;
Are you both asserting that eating the fruit gave Adam and Eve their conscience?
Then they realized nakedness was wrong?

Exclamation

Sorry, I just choked on my coffee

1 Reply

@neologist,

How can you see it any other way Neo? The tale makes that very clear. They were naked and not ashamed. They ate the fruit, saw they were naked and covered up.

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know