Comment: Simulating conversation

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: You make my head spin (see in situ)

Simulating conversation

"First of all, I have been inspired in the past to ask you, do you not read all of my words before you start replying? Do you read 1 page or 1 sentence of a book and try to construct a whole book of words around that page or that sentence?"

I've described how I read and respond in Forum Discussions before, and so my assumption (probably wrong), is that I have describe this to you too. I read as far as I can and then when I feel the need to respond I stop reading and I respond before reading the rest of the latest offering in discussion. I think this way that I do things is good for somethings, not so good for other things, and I call this way that I do this with the label Simulating Conversation.

I but in, I cut off your monologue, and I blurt out a response, and a good thing about this is that it is educational concerning how sometimes I am very wrong about what I am reading, and other times I get the message right away: to be confirmed as I read on.

"When I am writing, I am in someway building a thought and it takes all of my words to get the whole meaning of the thought I am trying ever so poorly to convey. I just want you to know, I read all of your words before I start typing. Then I reread as I type."

Sometimes I read all of your words, and I have no response, and I don't respond until later, or not at all. We do things differently which is not a surprise to me, and it may be a good thing (blessing?).

"Your concept of morality having to do with human life being good is different from my concept. I think that may be where we get out of sink."

I cut that off, like holding my hand up to you in conversation, asking you (actually telling you since this is not a conversation person to person in real time, this only simulates one), asking you to stop while I address how that sentence affects my perspective.

"Your concept of morality having to do with human life being good is different from my concept. I think that may be where we get out of sink."

My thinking is trained to work along a specific pattern based upon one measurable truth, then obvious best guesses which can be considered truth, and then on and on from that one foundation of fact, through best guesses, and onward into more complicated matters.

I do not think like anyone else I know. I do think consistently the same way over and over and over again, and from this very diligent method of thinking, over time, I can gauge my "feelings" as being separate from my thinking. I don't know if you understand these words. I know that very few people get a fraction of the distance you have moved toward being able to discuss (compare perspectives) with me. How odd can I get?

You have no idea how your offerings in discussion affect me compared to how long I've been unable to discuss what we have already discussed, and to me we are scratching on the surface of a snow flake on top of an iceberg.

"Your concept of morality having to do with human life being good is different from my concept. I think that may be where we get out of sink."

All things being relative the measure of our two perspectives being out of sink can be considered very much out of sink on one end of the scale to almost in harmony but missing a few fractions of a wave length.

I hope to hear, in the rest of your response, how you perceive morality having to do with human life being good.

"I think of morality as being holy like God is holy: Sinless perfection."

I have to hold up my hand again, well I don't have to, no one is forcing me to hold up my hand, but my sense of morality automatically reverts back to the murdered babies as soon as I read your sentence quoted above, and there is no way I'm going to be able to abdicate, robotically, any sense of morality that murders babies, a force would have to take over me, consume me, and I would no longer be the me I am right now, for that to happen.

"Sinless perfection."

Murder babies.

That does not compute.

"Anything that is unholy is evil. So that is why I say man is evil."

If God does it, or makes one human being do it, it is Holy, and if any man does something on his own, it is evil by definition?

I can offer, again, that I am wrong, certainly, but a human brain, if I am not mistaken, works with switches, and therefore a human brain is either one or zero, on or off, and so reason (not intuition) requires that things add up: 1 plus 1 equals 2, etc.

If you are speaking about intuition, belief, trust, instinct, whatever is the force at work that your perspective is based upon, then there is no reason to offer reasons for it. You have this immeasurable (reasonable) POWER to trust/believe/know/be guided by God, as you see it = perceive.

If on the other hand there is reason, then we aught to be able to reason it out, not requiring any belief on either of our parts, it is reasonable, and there it is, separate from us, it is reasoned like having one apple placed next to another apple and knowing, by reason, that there are 2 apples separate from us two.

"I think of morality as being holy like God is holy: Sinless perfection. Anything short of sinless perfection is unholy. Anything that is unholy is evil. So that is why I say man is evil."

Take that apart please:

"God is holy"

What does that mean?

We have arrived at a point where God orders the murder of babies. God does it, so it is by definition Holy. The murder of babies is sinless perfection, so long as God does it, or so long as someone ordered by God does it, and they obey without question, or they question, but not enough to stop them, they obey, and then the babies are murdered by someone, and in that case the murder of babies is a case of sinless perfection almost, but not quite, because only God is Holy.

God is holy: meaning do as I say not as a I do type holy?

What is holy?

Wait for orders and then obey those orders without question?

Again, if it is unreasonable, if it is a power that is not tied down with reason, then that is one thing. If it is going to be reasoned out, then an obvious question is "What is holy?"

"Anything short of sinless perfection is unholy."

If it is not an unreasonable POWER that takes over someone, rendering someone a drone, or a puppet, being forced by God to do things, then a person is then self POWERED by something. If it is instinct then a person will defend themselves in some way, without thinking, or a person will suddenly move out of the way as a knife slices at someone, barely missing someone. If a person has time to see, to think, and then to act willfully, then calculations are made with the brain, ones and zeros, reasons, perceptions, reactions (not willful), actions (willful), and all done by self propulsion, self-evident, self-powered, individual, autonomous, actions.

"Anything short of sinless perfection is unholy."

I acted immediately, and my actions were nearly sinless, by some means other than reason, because I had no time to think, I had to act immediately.

I acted willfully, and my actions were designed by me to be nearly sinless, and I used whatever power I could find, in time, before I had to act, eventually.

What POWER do I use in any case whatsoever, to act closer to an ideal and further away from evil?

Murder those babies Joe.

No, sorry, that is unreasonable, and as far as I know there is no power in me to do so without thinking.

"Man is incapable of being holy, but man is capable of being evil."

By that reasoning, and again that is separate from some other power at work, other than reason, but by that reasoning there isn't any sense in working to do something that is impossible to do, so why try?

Why try what?

What is holy?

If it can't be measured, then reason isn't going to work well in answering the question: what is holy?

• 2 Chronicles 7:14 KJV
If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray , and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

You are not getting in trouble as far as I am concerned. The battle to do good things and avoid doing bad things is driven by some power.

What is holy?

Baby murder

If that is the case then I'm out for sure. I won't be holy. I don't think I have it in me to be holy.

If baby murder isn't holy, then it isn't.

If baby murder is only holy when God, or God's helpers, do it, then anything can be holy, anything at all.

Wipe out the human race, it is holy.

There is the button.

Send every soul into the lake of fire, that is holy.

I don't know. I'm using reason. If baby murder is holy, then what is the definition of holy?

Holy is what God says, and that is it.

That is not reason, that is something else, so why spend another minute, wasted, on willful employment of human power to accomplish the impossible?

If it is not possible, then it isn't possible. If it is possible, then what is it?

What is holy?

Baby murder.

Am I beating a dead horse?

At least I'm not beating babies to death.

I'm typing.

Relatively speaking, trying to be reasonable, if I were on my knees praying, instead of typing, fewer babies will be murdered?

I'd have to abandon reason for me to start in that direction. How long on my knees will work. Is it constant? If I start now I can save 100 babies before I die on my knees for lack of water? My wife might arrive and stick a tube in my arm to keep me hydrated while I save babies; another tube for food.

If I pray harder more babies are saved. If I last longer more babies are saved.

"God is talking to His people."

That was this:

• 2 Chronicles 7:14 KJV
If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray , and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

So I'm jealous again.

"Please go to that link and read all of it. It is a short 1 page. It explains what I am talking about when I mean we, that can include you and everyone else, need to get right with God."

I can sink all day working on this path of trying to save babies the Christian way. I don't think we are communicating well, and you have identified a very significant founding point that clearly separates our perspectives at the root of our thinking (reason).

For me to get right with God, whatever that means, I have to accept that right is baby murder. I can't do that, it makes no sense to me, my brain is getting in the way.

"There is collective punishment and there is collective goodness:"

There is where my brain gets in the way again. "Collective Punishment" is a false front, a lie, it is invented by criminals, and they paint up their crimes with any color, and false flag, any false front, any lie, any disguise, any way, that works to divert attention away from them, the criminals, so as to keep the victims powerless and incapable of defense.

I'll read on to see what Matthew has to say:

• Matthew 5:45 KJV
That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

Again, reason, getting in the way, the concept of natural law appears to make sense to me, as natural forces (God forces) occur, such as a flood, and a storm, and a super nova, and living things are created, and living things are destroyed. No matter how much I may want human beings to survive for a long as possible, the fact that Earth will not last forever ensures, logically, that human beings have to either learn how to colonize other planets, or perish with the Earth.

That has little to do with murdering babies, unless, again, reason getting in the way, God is working the process called Evolution, and therefore those "bad seeds" have to be culled from the herd, and there can be no more of those genetic experiments working to "spoil the brew".

God, the holy Evolutionist, gets rid of the genetic mutations that are undesirable, but baby murderers who follow orders without question are among the desired genetic makeup orders ordered by God to carry on, according to the plan.

Again, reason getting in the way, and I'm not working to make your head spin, or my own, but reason works reasonably, or the discussion can end on blind obedience to whatever Power is handed to Christians and kept from me. I don't have it. I try to get it. It does not arrive, so far.

As to translating God's word. If God is what I think God is then God is not speaking in human languages, what would be the point? If God is as you say, then I am left out, and I am incapable of knowing God without either God's personal help, or my dependence upon human beings for their evil help, or their help that isn't evil when God is pulling their strings. If that sounds like me attacking your perspective, then it is not my intention, my intention is to know better.

My reasoned out concept of morality is based upon the fact that life exists, and human life in particular exists, and if there is a life form that can exist on other planets, moving to other planets from Earth, then that is good, by that reason, so why not go that way, why not move from Earth to another planet?

Your reasoning, as far as I can tell, is that the definition of good is only what God says it is, at any given moment, and man is bad, or evil, so it makes sense, to me, in that context, by that reasoning, that God aught to wipe out this poor excuse for life, and start over, or give up.

I don't know. My head isn't spinning. I'm relying upon reason.

"And that is good. But you have an English copy of the Bible and it was provided because a man was willing to risk his life so you would have it. I urge you, read it."

My daughter inherited a sewing machine that I am charged with the duty to fix it. I may be able to do so. I may not.

I've read parts of the Bible. Which version? Which text? When I get to the baby murder parts, I put it down. I'm not on that bus.

Willful, purposeful, premeditated, reasoned, murder of babies.

I'm not saying that there aren't any very important things to know written in many religious books, and many religious books agree on many things that reason out to be good.

What is holy?

What is good?

I'm asking.

I get that men are bad.



Does it say in the Bible that God created the process of evolution and at times God places his thumb on the scale?

Hey, you, yes you, go over there, and get rid of that genetic mutation, it isn't working for me.

"There is no magical recipe for revival. I don’t know what will happen to our country. There are people who seek God devoutly. I would not include myself in that group, even though I am a pastor’s wife. I have other concerns. I have priorities that are not right. I struggle, that being said, I am basically a good person."

My hand is up again. I see contradiction again. Man is bad. Where did I read that?

"Your concept of morality having to do with human life being good is different from my concept. I think that may be where we get out of sink. I think of morality as being holy like God is holy: Sinless perfection. Anything short of sinless perfection is unholy. Anything that is unholy is evil. So that is why I say man is evil."

There it is, and as you have repeated: "Cutting to the chase."

"I am basically a good person."
"I say man is evil."

"I am basically a good person."
"I say man is evil."

I willfully work toward perpetuating life as a general rule. Do no harm. If I make errors I can recognize those errors, failure to recognize errors is an error, and I can avoid repeating errors: reasonably.

I say that there are Legal Criminals among us, and it is past time to stop paying them so well for injuring so many innocent people.

God is a fact.

I do not see any contradiction in that fact.

But those places where I see contradiction, reasonably, I think it is important to get help resolving them.

I've been working to pray, to ask Jesus, to ask God, for help.

I get this:

God (as far as I can tell based upon non-reason):

"Joe, you want my help, then you have to help other people, and if you really help them, then you have to actually listen to what they have to say."

I'm not told, in any way, to be Christian. You don't even tell me.

I do read The Bible, rarely, but I've read a whole lot of scripture since meeting you, relative to how much Bible reading I've done, and my guess is that the copy of The Bible I have is not the one your group sanctions, so I may be getting the version that is spun, or inaccurate, for some reason.

In order for me to feel right, about myself, reasonably, I see a need to read some of the text offered by you, to me, in those links.


Editing will have to wait

"arm of flesh,"

I listened to (read) the link that includes George Washington as a "Founding Father", and my understanding is such that George Washington is a False Front, a "patriot" of dubious authority, myth, legend, a cover story, a "Federalist", and from then on it was hard to read the work.

What does "arm of flesh" mean?

Does it mean the power commanded by human beings?

Don't trust the power commanded by human beings, in particular, for example, the power commanded by false flag human beings like George Washington the turn coat, Red Coat, hiding behind a false Blue Coat?

In relative comparison to God all other powers can't measure up?

So why try to do something that is impossible?

What is possible?

End the FED

That is not tough to do, and in fact The FED is being ended and a replacement will be "better" than The FED, better for Legal Criminals.

Why not replace the FED with something better for everyone except those who earn their lives through crimes that include baby murder for fun and profit?

End the IRS

That is almost the same problem and solution as replacing The FED with something better for everyone instead of replacing The FED with something better for only a few of the worst human beings ever to pollute the human gene pool. Those who control the money, forcing everyone to use ONE, make debtors (victims) of everyone but a few of the worse people imaginable, and they aim to collect their money; so why not compete with accurate money instead?

Bring the Troops Home (look in the mirror)