1
   

Can You Make Me See Red?

Forums: Spirituality And Religion, Religion, Christianity
Email this Topic • Print this Page
 
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jan, 2006 03:15 pm
Bartikus,

Cats do not have beady eyes. I love cats!

Oh BTW, I am seeing red Crying or Very sad .
0 Replies
 
Bartikus
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jan, 2006 03:22 pm
Momma Angel wrote:
Bartikus,

Cats do not have beady eyes. I love cats!

Oh BTW, I am seeing red Crying or Very sad .


Yeah but some cats can stare you down like no tomorrow. Like JL's cat.

I look away and there it is staring at me....constantly. For the love of all cats everywhere stop it you feline freak of nature! Laughing

I'm ok it's.....a......just an issue I'm dealing with.

I'm getting my dog.
0 Replies
 
Bartikus
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jan, 2006 03:32 pm
I have to find another dog guys.....I mean just look at that pathetic little dog. What the hell kind of protection against cats is that? Laughing

I might as well picked a mouse.

I'll find one.....and when i do......the fur is gonna fly baby.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jan, 2006 06:30 pm
Bartikus,

Yes, I'm afraid that's a bit of a puny little dog (you sure that's a dog?) My cats would have that for an appetizer! Laughing
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jan, 2006 06:32 pm
and the clown hat makes him look silly
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jan, 2006 06:33 pm
Actually, I quite liked the hat. :wink:
0 Replies
 
Im the other one
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jan, 2006 06:50 pm
Oh good grief.

I'm not going thru all the posts just yet, but I think what momma angel is trying to say is:

Is that blind person seeing anything? No.
Is that deaf person hearing anything? No.

Therefore, how can you explain to them what they don't see or don't hear? You can't. No scientific experiments for them on their reality. Sure, experiments can be done on sound and sight, but this still doesn't make them have these experiences as someone who does have them.

Hope that makes sense and I hope I put it in an understandable way, but somehow I doubt it.
0 Replies
 
Im the other one
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jan, 2006 06:59 pm
aktorist wrote:
Quote:
Nice try. But, you still have not made each person experience the things that they have never experienced. I say it is impossible.

Dys, I don't have a problem distinguishing anything. What I am trying to tell you is that just because you do not experience something does not mean it isn't so.


You don't need to experience something for something to exist. Evidence is enough. For example, do you "experience" atoms? Do you experience the war in Iraq?

But there's reliable evidence. And one we can test again and again.


Just as you don't need scientific evidence for something to exist. Experience is enough.

Do you experience God? No? Ok then. :wink:

But there's experience for people who know him on a personal level. And one can have this again and again.
0 Replies
 
Im the other one
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jan, 2006 07:00 pm
I like your avatar Bartikus.

Long time, no see type.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jan, 2006 07:00 pm
And give that little rocking monkey a banana! Bingo! You got it, I'm the other one! Good for you! Laughing
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jan, 2006 07:08 pm
Yes, yes . . . the rocking monkey shares your delusion . . . how happy for you all ! ! !
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jan, 2006 07:10 pm
Sourpuss! Razz
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jan, 2006 07:14 pm
I'm the other one wrote:
Oh good grief.

I'm not going thru all the posts just yet, but I think what momma angel is trying to say is:

Is that blind person seeing anything? No.
Is that deaf person hearing anything? No.

Therefore, how can you explain to them what they don't see or don't hear? You can't. No scientific experiments for them on their reality. Sure, experiments can be done on sound and sight, but this still doesn't make them have these experiences as someone who does have them.

Hope that makes sense and I hope I put it in an understandable way, but somehow I doubt it.


You go to the top of the class because you are one of the few that actually get it.
0 Replies
 
Im the other one
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jan, 2006 07:15 pm
Momma Angel wrote:
And give that little rocking monkey a banana! Bingo! You got it, I'm the other one! Good for you! Laughing


Thank you! Very Happy

Bingo! I geta banana.
0 Replies
 
Im the other one
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jan, 2006 07:19 pm
Intrepid wrote:
I'm the other one wrote:
Oh good grief.

I'm not going thru all the posts just yet, but I think what momma angel is trying to say is:

Is that blind person seeing anything? No.
Is that deaf person hearing anything? No.

Therefore, how can you explain to them what they don't see or don't hear? You can't. No scientific experiments for them on their reality. Sure, experiments can be done on sound and sight, but this still doesn't make them have these experiences as someone who does have them.

Hope that makes sense and I hope I put it in an understandable way, but somehow I doubt it.


You go to the top of the class because you are one of the few that actually get it.


And I'm so glad to be one of the few, aren't you? :wink:
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jan, 2006 07:22 pm
I won't answer that lest we have a flood of vocal rebuttals and claims of boasting. ;-)
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jan, 2006 07:24 pm
Intrepid wrote:
I'm the other one wrote:
Oh good grief.

I'm not going thru all the posts just yet, but I think what momma angel is trying to say is:

etc., blah, blah, blah . . .


You go to the top of the class because you are one of the few that actually get it.


According to you, then, "getting it" means agreeing with the proposition without a supported argument to justify the agreement. The top of the class must be the sycophant section.

What is truly hilarious is ITOO (how apposite an acronym) begins by admitting to not having read all the posts. Yes, one would not want to pollute one's opinion by actually considering all the points of view which have been advanced.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jan, 2006 07:25 pm
See Laughing
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jan, 2006 07:27 pm
It seems that some who have only read a few of the posts actually "get it" more than some who have read all of the posts. I have no idea how many posts the big doggy read because the understanding does not seem to be evident.
0 Replies
 
Im the other one
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jan, 2006 07:30 pm
Setanta wrote:
Intrepid wrote:
I'm the other one wrote:
Oh good grief.

I'm not going thru all the posts just yet, but I think what momma angel is trying to say is:

etc., blah, blah, blah . . .


You go to the top of the class because you are one of the few that actually get it.


According to you, then, "getting it" means agreeing with the proposition without a supported argument to justify the agreement. The top of the class must be the sycophant section.

What is truly hilarious is ITOO (how apposite an acronym) begins by admitting to not having read all the posts. Yes, one would not want to pollute one's opinion by actually considering all the points of view which have been advanced.


Yes, I admit to reading several, but I read enough.

That's the sad part.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
Family files lawsuit against school over Jesus - Discussion by Baldimo
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Can You Make Me See Red?
  3. » Page 15
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/18/2025 at 09:18:48
▲ ▼