Well, then we can proceed, and we can both drop the facades, invective, misassumptions, and dismissals, and pursue truth together. I'm not touchy, just trying to get past your own bluster to the true you.
I'm disappointed you assert zero positives about your god and your position mainly seems identical to the atheist position of "you're wrong". I had glanced through your writings and found a similar lack of reliance on facts and evidence, so your list of books with perfect ChatGPT formatting suggested it was an outlier rather than something on your shelf. You also didn't use it for any purpose because anyone can make a list of 20 books of any persuasion without that having any truth value out of context. That's why I taunted you, because you didn't bring anything to the table.
not willing to understand it, and stick to your Christian beliefs
I expressed that I've seen this material and understand it, and in my search for truth have sifted what is true and what isn't, in my fallible, perfectible judgment. My beliefs change from time to time, but the one thing I cannot change is that I've been given up to Yahweh's power and I cannot be taken from him unless by a superior power. (As soon as that superior power comes along, it would free me. If.)
Since you don't seem to produce a proposition capable of debate on a fundamental point, I suggested by implication that we discuss a binary proposition like "Yahweh is greater than any other god". I could continue by observations such as Yahweh being defined as All Being and All Being being automatically greater than any subset of being. You might parry that Yahweh in the Bible is not described as All Being but as some Dawkins caricature, and I would reply that that's irrelevant because of my definition. We might then agree that we both would worship whatever god is All Being without yet arguing about his name. That would be productive.
It's not productive for me to argue propositions like "The Bible is by humans for humans" because that gets us nowhere toward discovering whether Yahweh dictated the Bible or not. I hold the Bible is by humans for humans, and Yahweh dictated it, both, so there's no debate there.
It seems to me that as a student of truth you would not (1) run from debate, (2) ridicule generically, (3) make assumptions, (4) fail to define and defend your own perception of truth, etc. Looking forward to your thoughts. So far you appear exactly like someone who has no idea what a student of truth is but who is enslaved to some god that he is afraid to name or explain, who then projects that status upon others. God bless.
Well, then we can proceed, and we can both drop the facades, invective, misassumptions, and dismissals, and pursue truth together. I'm not touchy, just trying to get past your own bluster to the true you.
I'm disappointed you assert zero positives about your god and your position mainly seems identical to the atheist position of "you're wrong". I had glanced through your writings and found a similar lack of reliance on facts and evidence, so your list of books with perfect ChatGPT formatting suggested it was an outlier rather than something on your shelf. You also didn't use it for any purpose because anyone can make a list of 20 books of any persuasion without that having any truth value out of context. That's why I taunted you, because you didn't bring anything to the table.
I expressed that I've seen this material and understand it, and in my search for truth have sifted what is true and what isn't, in my fallible, perfectible judgment. My beliefs change from time to time, but the one thing I cannot change is that I've been given up to Yahweh's power and I cannot be taken from him unless by a superior power. (As soon as that superior power comes along, it would free me. If.)
Since you don't seem to produce a proposition capable of debate on a fundamental point, I suggested by implication that we discuss a binary proposition like "Yahweh is greater than any other god". I could continue by observations such as Yahweh being defined as All Being and All Being being automatically greater than any subset of being. You might parry that Yahweh in the Bible is not described as All Being but as some Dawkins caricature, and I would reply that that's irrelevant because of my definition. We might then agree that we both would worship whatever god is All Being without yet arguing about his name. That would be productive.
It's not productive for me to argue propositions like "The Bible is by humans for humans" because that gets us nowhere toward discovering whether Yahweh dictated the Bible or not. I hold the Bible is by humans for humans, and Yahweh dictated it, both, so there's no debate there.
It seems to me that as a student of truth you would not (1) run from debate, (2) ridicule generically, (3) make assumptions, (4) fail to define and defend your own perception of truth, etc. Looking forward to your thoughts. So far you appear exactly like someone who has no idea what a student of truth is but who is enslaved to some god that he is afraid to name or explain, who then projects that status upon others. God bless.