Right on, Roark
ichi![]()
Tradition (holy books ...)
Vision (mystic way)
Mind (philosophic way)
Authorities (preachers, mullahs, parents ...)
Observations (from nature to God)
Pah, I am God
There is no way
Well, the moderators ...
gah
others
Right on, Roark
ichi![]()
Stay Calm, Be Alert, Think Clearly, Act Decisively
CoH
No one said anything interesting nor did the original poster provide any links to something in particular we could talk about like Gawain and countless others do. You can't start conversations with generalized topics.
Ok example: You guys know where I can get info on milk?
- Yes just go to a website that talks about it.
![]()
This thread could never go in the right direction, it had no direction. The only interesting I saw was JAG saying "I am God" and then other saying what they thought about it.![]()
When you start hanging around the backroom you'll understand that people here need direction or else it just won't be taken seriously.
Well BP, threads certainly don't benefit from your little tirades about how boring, uninteresting or irrelevent they are. (I've been hanging around the back room long enough to notice the frequency with which that happens). It's almost like you're lobbying for people to abandon the thread.
Anyway, 'nuff said on my part. I would simply encourage you to resist poopoo-ing something just because you personally don't find it interesting.![]()
Reliable information about a mythical being? Make it up that's what everyone else does. Then if you find it's not quite what you want you just change it to suit.
I couldn´t help but chuckle at thisthe metaphysics getting muddied with science![]()
Well, Roark, it may be that we understand the purpose of this thread differently. As I said above, I don´t see this so much as a discussion about God but about reliable information. I never said scientifical measures have to be used, but the question is how information can be reliable. The assumption I have for this topic is that "reliable information on x" has some specific characteristics that are independent of what x is. If you do not share this assumption, I´m not certain discours is even possible.
Bookmarks