11 Dec 05
Originally posted by FreakyKBHNo, because there are too many, most having little or nothing to do with emotions. Why don't you simply admit you were wrong? What is it about you fundies that makes you soooooooooooo idiotically stubborn? I realize a fire must protect its source, but it truly absurd to see someone try to suggest that ALL intentional actions are caused by emotions.
Define the impetus behind conscious objective.
BTW, since you assert that A) All intentional acts are caused by emotions: and
B) God has no emotions; it follows logically that
C) God doesn't do anything intentionally.
11 Dec 05
Originally posted by no1marauderOne might ask the same question of you.
Why don't you simply admit you were wrong? What is it about you fundies that makes you soooooooooooo idiotically stubborn? ALL intentional actions are caused by emotions.
BTW, since you assert that A) All intentional acts are caused by emotions
Fundamentalist? Hardly.
All intentional actions are driven by emotion? Not said by me. Your assignment tonight, is to re-read the posts, and then type four hundred times, I WILL NOT MIS-QUOTE ANOTHER POST.
11 Dec 05
Originally posted by FreakyKBHReally?? Let me quote this post:
One might ask the same question of you.
Fundamentalist? Hardly.
All intentional actions are driven by emotion? Not said by me. Your assignment tonight, is to re-read the posts, and then type four hundred times, I WILL NOT MIS-QUOTE ANOTHER POST.
KBH: It is the prosecution's task to show what that intent was in order to prove murder. Given the necessary emotions, murder is proven.
That is a statement that intent is proven by merely showing the "necessary emotions". Thus, emotions would be sufficient in and of themselves to prove intention to commit the acts. Maybe you should read your own posts so that as a fire protects its source you can actually make some sense out of them.
Basically you made some stupid statements and now are trying to deflect the discussion by talking gibberish and trying to suggest you were misunderstood. This is also a very common tactic on this board from people like you who obviously aren't tooooooo bright.
11 Dec 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungOops. Should have said
Joelek's original post describes eleven cases of Pharoah's heart being hardened. In 4 of the cases, there is no cause described. In 3 cases, it explicitly says that Pharoah hardened his own heart, and in 4 of the cases, it explicitly says God hardened Pharoah's heart.
These are 11 distinct cases of Pharoah hardening his own heart, and in 4 of ...[text shortened]... d how you came to your understanding of these passages without a little creative interpretation.
Joelek's original post describes eleven cases of Pharoah's heart being hardened. In 4 of the cases, there is no cause described. In 3 cases, it explicitly says that Pharoah hardened his own heart, and in 4 of the cases, it explicitly says God hardened Pharoah's heart.
These are 11 distinct cases of Pharoah's heart being hardened, and in 4 of them God is clearly described as the cause. I don't understand how you came to your understanding of these passages without a little creative interpretation.
Carry on.
12 Dec 05
Originally posted by no1marauderYeah, that and actually killing the person. Good argument.
Thus, emotions would be sufficient in and of themselves to prove intention to commit the acts.
Maybe you should read your own posts so you can actually make some sense out of them.
[/b]
If an elevated genius such as yourself cannot make heads or tails of my posts, how do you expect a dimwit such as me to do so? It's all I can do to type this crap out.
13 Dec 05
Originally posted by FreakyKBHPlease pay attention and answer the question. I'm not asking what an
Sorry for the delay. Lost this thread in a sea of dead.
Anthropomorphisms for man to understand the thinking of God.
Language of accomodation for one with little understanding of something bigger.
anthropomorphism is. I know what it is and if I didn't, I know what a
dictionary is.
For reference, here was my question:
I'm asking you to explain what God's anger, mercy, and compassion are if
they aren't emotions. They are anthropomorphisms for what?
If they are not emotions but simply anthropomorphisms for something bigger,
WHAT ARE THEY?
Nemesio
13 Dec 05
Originally posted by NemesioI'm not sure if I can make it any clearer than I have already have.
Please pay attention and answer the question.
If they are not emotions but simply anthropomorphisms for something bigger,
[b]WHAT ARE THEY?
Nemesio[/b]
You are generalizing all of the anthropomorphisms into one "they," while each of the descriptive uses have specific intents.
One definition of "they" won't fit the whole bill, unfortunately.
Suffice to say in each case, God uses something we understand (our own emotions in particular situations) to help describe something we cannot understand (the thinking of God).
13 Dec 05
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWhat a cop out!
I'm not sure if I can make it any clearer than I have already have.
You are generalizing all of the anthropomorphisms into one "they," while each of the descriptive uses have specific intents.
One definition of "they" won't fit the whole bill, unfortunately.
Suffice to say in each case, God uses something we understand (our own emotions in particular situations) to help describe something we cannot understand (the thinking of God).
God's apparent emotions aren't emotions. They are 'God-things' that look
like emotions. When God appears angry, He isn't experiencing an emotion,
it just appears that way! But, don't ask me to explain what it is, but I know
it's not an emotion!
What a crock!
You show me that God doesn't have emotions and pick a few examples of your
own showing a few different ones how they aren't emotions but 'descriptive'
events with 'specific intents.'
Nemesio
14 Dec 05
Originally posted by NemesioI show you that God doesn't have emotions by showing you God doesn't have emotions? Late-night post?
You show me that God doesn't have emotions
Nemesio[/b]
There is no 'God-thing,' as you allude. There is the thinking of God, which was best illustrated to the listeners at the time by using human emotions. Something they couldn't understand (God's thinking), illustrated by something they could understand (human emotions).
Did I say the thinking of God yet? How about His policy?
14 Dec 05
Originally posted by FreakyKBHMy question is, on what grounds do you assert that God doesn't have emotions?
I show you that God doesn't have emotions by showing you God doesn't have emotions? Late-night post?
There is no 'God-thing,' as you allude. There is the thinking of God, which was best illustrated to the listeners at the time by using human emotions. Something they couldn't understand (God's thinking), illustrated by something they could understand (human emotions).
Did I say the thinking of God yet? How about His policy?
That is, God obviously has these things that look and act like emotions. Why not
call them emotions?
Occam's Razor, bud. It looks like it, it acts like it, the words reflect it. But you
say it's not. But you won't say what it is.
Odds are, you're wrong.
Nemesio