Error in Rigour

[chaz wyman]

Titheing to God's storehouse, where He keeps His commandments. I have yet to hear of a single person who tithes so who is not abundantly provided for. Do you know of any?

Thanks for the warnings about arrogance, etc. Will get right on it. Or better, will get the powers that be on it. (Ever read that Stephen King short story, about the mafia group that made those who wanted to, say, quit smoking, get 'er done?)

READ this and tell me why your god allows you such luxury.

http://www.actionaid.org.uk/doc_lib/asd ... anteed.pdf

Luxury? I'm agin' luxury. I want to prosper in what I do, which is overcome evil with good. To have whatever I need to get that done most effectively. I hope it's working to improve the lives of troubled people.

But you are the epitome of evil.
Self satisfied and arrogant.

[chaz wyman]

Titheing to God's storehouse, where He keeps His commandments. I have yet to hear of a single person who tithes so who is not abundantly provided for. Do you know of any?

Thanks for the warnings about arrogance, etc. Will get right on it. Or better, will get the powers that be on it. (Ever read that Stephen King short story, about the mafia group that made those who wanted to, say, quit smoking, get 'er done?)

READ this and tell me why your god allows you such luxury.

http://www.actionaid.org.uk/doc_lib/asd ... anteed.pdf

Luxury? I'm agin' luxury. I want to prosper in what I do, which is overcome evil with good. To have whatever I need to get that done most effectively. I hope it's working to improve the lives of troubled people.

But you are the epitome of evil.
Self satisfied and arrogant.

[groktruth]

titheing is a sufficient but not a necessary condition for prosperity. BT in fact frequently notes that the wicked prosper, as a curse or punishment. It deludes them into clinging to their wickedness.

This is rather ridiculous. You've offered an empirically testable position that doesn't stand up to any scrutiny whatsoever unless you redefine "prosperity" in a way that defies all common definitions.

It will stand up to whatever definiton you care, publically, or accountably, to use. I prefer the self report of the one "prospering," since I have a long history of getting what I sought as "prosperity" only to be grieved and miserable when I got what I wanted. But titheing brought both sorts, and I was quickly able to get rid of the foolish stuff. (Like a tenured job as a professor at a university.)

[chaz wyman]

titheing is a sufficient but not a necessary condition for prosperity. BT in fact frequently notes that the wicked prosper, as a curse or punishment. It deludes them into clinging to their wickedness.

This is rather ridiculous. You've offered an empirically testable position that doesn't stand up to any scrutiny whatsoever unless you redefine "prosperity" in a way that defies all common definitions.

It will stand up to whatever definiton you care, publically, or accountably, to use. I prefer the self report of the one "prospering," since I have a long history of getting what I sought as "prosperity" only to be grieved and miserable when I got what I wanted. But titheing brought both sorts, and I was quickly able to get rid of the foolish stuff. (Like a tenured job as a professor at a university.)

It seems increasingly we seem to be seeing a lot more of this weirdness form you over the last few days. You seem to be finding meaning in the meaningless.
None of this seems to make sense, to me either. Now either John and me are both mad or you are not explaining yourself very well. Which is the most likely ?

[John]

titheing is a sufficient but not a necessary condition for prosperity. BT in fact frequently notes that the wicked prosper, as a curse or punishment. It deludes them into clinging to their wickedness.

This is rather ridiculous. You've offered an empirically testable position that doesn't stand up to any scrutiny whatsoever unless you redefine "prosperity" in a way that defies all common definitions.

It will stand up to whatever definiton you care, publically, or accountably, to use. I prefer the self report of the one "prospering," since I have a long history of getting what I sought as "prosperity" only to be grieved and miserable when I got what I wanted. But titheing brought both sorts, and I was quickly able to get rid of the foolish stuff. (Like a tenured job as a professor at a university.)

What makes you think that your experience is enough to declare a general rule?

Besides, I'd prefer to stick with the dictionary definition which is:

pros·per·i·ty (pr-spr-t)
n.
The condition of being prosperous.

pros·per·ous (prspr-s)
adj.
1. Having success; flourishing: a prosperous new business.
2. Well-to-do; well-off: a prosperous family.
3. Propitious; favorable: a prosperous moment to make a decision.

If that's not what you mean then I suggest you rephrase your statement.

[Cerveny]

Why God (or the Nature or some supersystem) should take care for people? He does not want us to admire him, I guess. He certainly need not us to serve him. Is his duty to cultivate us? What is his aim? Let me to raise the question of Universe's sense again :(

[chaz wyman]

Why God (or the Nature or some supersystem) should take care for people? He does not want us to admire him, I guess. He certainly need not us to serve him. Is his duty to cultivate us? What is his aim? Let me to raise the question of Universe's sense again

There is no discernible sense to the Universe.
Human notions of justice far outweigh in goodness the happenstance of nature.

[Cerveny]

Why God (or the Nature or some supersystem) should take care for people? He does not want us to admire him, I guess. He certainly need not us to serve him. Is his duty to cultivate us? What is his aim? Let me to raise the question of Universe's sense again :(

There is no discernible sense to the Universe.
Human notions of justice far outweigh in goodness the happenstance of nature.

Sorry, I believe in intuitable sense of Universe...
Hardly to believe in goodness in nature, I can see there hard hunting and rivalry… but let’s say there is some harmony…
Perhaps nice moment of the present is increasing sympathy for animals and in the Nature generally :)

[chaz wyman]

Why God (or the Nature or some supersystem) should take care for people? He does not want us to admire him, I guess. He certainly need not us to serve him. Is his duty to cultivate us? What is his aim? Let me to raise the question of Universe's sense again

There is no discernible sense to the Universe.
Human notions of justice far outweigh in goodness the happenstance of nature.

Sorry, I believe in intuitable sense of Universe...

Shame you don't believe in grammar.

Hardly to believe in goodness in nature, I can see there hard hunting and rivalry… but let’s say there is some harmony…
Perhaps nice moment of the present is increasing sympathy for animals and in the Nature generally

Your meaning is not clear.

[Cerveny]

Sorry, I believe in intuitable sense of Universe...

Shame you don't believe in grammar.

Hardly to believe in goodness in nature, I can see there hard hunting and rivalry… but let’s say there is some harmony…
Perhaps nice moment of the present is increasing sympathy for animals and in the Nature generally :)

Your meaning is not clear.


Sorry for my grammar, I suffer of strong dyslexia that makes me disable to learn foreing languages ... And, by the way, what is clear in this damned world :)

[groktruth]

It seems increasingly we seem to be seeing a lot more of this weirdness form you over the last few days. You seem to be finding meaning in the meaningless.
None of this seems to make sense, to me either. Now either John and me are both mad or you are not explaining yourself very well. Which is the most likely ?

BT asserts that all are mad (because of domination by evil spirits) unless steps are taken to reduce or eliminate the influence. Steps I take, but you do not. And, following what I have learned about applied epistemology, Bt is true beyond reasonable doubt. Soooo, I guess from this we would have to deduce that you and John do not understand because you both remain "mad." (In the rabid sense, infected by a maddening parasite.)

[chaz wyman]

It seems increasingly we seem to be seeing a lot more of this weirdness form you over the last few days. You seem to be finding meaning in the meaningless.
None of this seems to make sense, to me either. Now either John and me are both mad or you are not explaining yourself very well. Which is the most likely ?

BT asserts that all are mad (because of domination by evil spirits) unless steps are taken to reduce or eliminate the influence. Steps I take, but you do not. And, following what I have learned about applied epistemology, Bt is true beyond reasonable doubt. Soooo, I guess from this we would have to deduce that you and John do not understand because you both remain "mad." (In the rabid sense, infected by a maddening parasite.)

I think you have answered my question.
Please deal with your own demons.
Please take this suggestion in the spirit it is intended: Your confusion is not to be blamed on demons, but you might be mad. Nothing personal. Seek help!

[groktruth]

Why God (or the Nature or some supersystem) should take care for people? He does not want us to admire him, I guess. He certainly need not us to serve him. Is his duty to cultivate us? What is his aim? Let me to raise the question of Universe's sense again

We all take care of the things, or people, we create. We also appreciate admiration, and service, whether we "need" it or not. Being created in God's image, we can understand Him by comparison.

The epistemology of finding out whether any of this is true, given the nature of the idea itself (it involves free will, which creates both external and internal obstructions to understanding and seeing the truth) is not simple. The application of choice (taking personal responsibility), understanding, and rather strict adherence to what science calls "the materials and methods," are all critical. Finding out the truth about any person is not simple. While God, unlike most persons we know, cannot lie, He can delude. He is a master of telling the truth in such a way that persons He would rather not see any more of (in their present condition) get the wrong idea, and leave Him alone. (Until they decide to change their condition.) According to BT, biblical theology, learning and abiding by the rules of applied epistemology (He calls it "the love of the truth") is a sin qua non of being in a condition such that He will cooperate with any sfforts you might make to know the truth about Him. And, with the devil (Read THE SCREWTAPE LETTERS by C. S. Lewis) working against you, without His help, you haven't got a chance.

[John]

It seems increasingly we seem to be seeing a lot more of this weirdness form you over the last few days. You seem to be finding meaning in the meaningless.
None of this seems to make sense, to me either. Now either John and me are both mad or you are not explaining yourself very well. Which is the most likely ?

BT asserts that all are mad (because of domination by evil spirits) unless steps are taken to reduce or eliminate the influence. Steps I take, but you do not. And, following what I have learned about applied epistemology, Bt is true beyond reasonable doubt. Soooo, I guess from this we would have to deduce that you and John do not understand because you both remain "mad." (In the rabid sense, infected by a maddening parasite.)

You're either writing nonsense or you have problems expressing exactly what you mean. Either way it makes the thread a touch laborious.

[chaz wyman]

It seems increasingly we seem to be seeing a lot more of this weirdness form you over the last few days. You seem to be finding meaning in the meaningless.
None of this seems to make sense, to me either. Now either John and me are both mad or you are not explaining yourself very well. Which is the most likely ?

BT asserts that all are mad (because of domination by evil spirits) unless steps are taken to reduce or eliminate the influence. Steps I take, but you do not. And, following what I have learned about applied epistemology, Bt is true beyond reasonable doubt. Soooo, I guess from this we would have to deduce that you and John do not understand because you both remain "mad." (In the rabid sense, infected by a maddening parasite.)

You're either writing nonsense or you have problems expressing exactly what you mean. Either way it makes the thread a touch laborious.

I don't even think Grok knows what he himself is saying.