Dear USMB
This is more of a request to help mediate between me and M.D. Rawlings who
somehow got off on the wrong track on a different thread. On the Thread for
the Syllogistic proof of God (using TAG which M.D. Rawlings is defending),
I pointed out that
1. the TAG approach works by definition for those who already agree enough
on God to agree to these definitions or approach and aren't bothered by the proof,
which is mostly based on defining God to begin with to be something agreed to exist.
Therefore any statements contrary will bring up conflicts. That is just pure logic
definitions and I agree this works for those who already can follow that logic.
However, for those who disagree, for whatever reason, with either the definition of
God, the approach or the motive of the person arguing, this TAG does not work.
It is rejected as a circular argument and all the holes can be punched through it as has
already been done.
2. I offered to set up scientific studies and demonstration of Spiritual Healing to
show there is truth to the concepts and process taught in Christianity, about
forgiveness and receiving healing vs. unforgiveness that blocks healing. I also
offered that this same forgiveness factor is the KEY to reconciliation between
people regarding the issues and conflicts over the TAG proof as well as God/Jesus/the Bible
and Christianity in general.
So I argue that the TAG is actually part of a LARGER process of reconciliation going on
AROUND the proof, and the proof for each person may vary differently, but essentially
follows the same patterns:
A. first the person makes or confronts an assumed statement such as
"God exists" or "Christ Jesus means Restorative Justice" or "Spiritual Healing is
real and is based on forgiveness and can be demonstrated by science to validate what is taught in religion"
B. then ALL the objections or conflicts arise that are preventing people from agreeing
what is meant by A and what is the common truth that both sides agree on even if they express it
differently, such as through secular science or religious symbolism
C. and if all the conflicts can either be resolved, or forgiven, or shown to be not a necessary condition,
then the parties have a chance to reconcile even if their views and beliefs remain conflicting or unchanged.
what changes is their perception where the conflicts do not have to negate what either one is saying.
So I offered this, and somehow miscommunicated so badly
that M.D. Rawlings accused me of
posting BS and lying!
I have asked M.D. to explain where I was lying
so I can correct whatever was misstated that needs clarification.
I apologize if I came across as saying or adding anything
unnecessary, but I certainly have no intent, reason or benefit
in saying anything false, misleading, or inconsistent because that defeats my purpose.
My goal is to show that people can reconcile and it doesn't have to change our views or beliefs,
as long as we can forgive our differences and quit projecting so much that we cannot resolve these conflicts.
So most of the problems are coming from unforgiveness of past
conflicts that are being projected back and forth, such as accusing
me of lying when I had no such intent and doing so would defeat everything I am trying to do.
So I challenge MD to be completely transparent
and quit projecting unforgiven issues onto me so
badly as to accuse me of lying when that is the opposite of my intent.
If anyone can help mediate on that thread,
I appreciate it!
I believe the right approach will include and satisfy everyone's points
and resolve any conflicts. The only conflicts that cannot be resolved
is if people refuse to forgive and keep projecting or rejecting instead.
So my premise still stands, that the real factors that make the difference
are forgiveness/love and unforgiveness/fear. If people keep acting projecting
and rejecting out of fear, that is causing the problems; and even if people
remain either theistic or nontheistic in their beliefs, that can still be reconciled
as long as people are not afraid and they agree to forgive those differences.
Whatever is causing M.D. to project onto others, I challenge him to
stop and address this, instead of accusing me of BS and lying.
This is more of a request to help mediate between me and M.D. Rawlings who
somehow got off on the wrong track on a different thread. On the Thread for
the Syllogistic proof of God (using TAG which M.D. Rawlings is defending),
I pointed out that
1. the TAG approach works by definition for those who already agree enough
on God to agree to these definitions or approach and aren't bothered by the proof,
which is mostly based on defining God to begin with to be something agreed to exist.
Therefore any statements contrary will bring up conflicts. That is just pure logic
definitions and I agree this works for those who already can follow that logic.
However, for those who disagree, for whatever reason, with either the definition of
God, the approach or the motive of the person arguing, this TAG does not work.
It is rejected as a circular argument and all the holes can be punched through it as has
already been done.
2. I offered to set up scientific studies and demonstration of Spiritual Healing to
show there is truth to the concepts and process taught in Christianity, about
forgiveness and receiving healing vs. unforgiveness that blocks healing. I also
offered that this same forgiveness factor is the KEY to reconciliation between
people regarding the issues and conflicts over the TAG proof as well as God/Jesus/the Bible
and Christianity in general.
So I argue that the TAG is actually part of a LARGER process of reconciliation going on
AROUND the proof, and the proof for each person may vary differently, but essentially
follows the same patterns:
A. first the person makes or confronts an assumed statement such as
"God exists" or "Christ Jesus means Restorative Justice" or "Spiritual Healing is
real and is based on forgiveness and can be demonstrated by science to validate what is taught in religion"
B. then ALL the objections or conflicts arise that are preventing people from agreeing
what is meant by A and what is the common truth that both sides agree on even if they express it
differently, such as through secular science or religious symbolism
C. and if all the conflicts can either be resolved, or forgiven, or shown to be not a necessary condition,
then the parties have a chance to reconcile even if their views and beliefs remain conflicting or unchanged.
what changes is their perception where the conflicts do not have to negate what either one is saying.
So I offered this, and somehow miscommunicated so badly
that M.D. Rawlings accused me of
posting BS and lying!
I have asked M.D. to explain where I was lying
so I can correct whatever was misstated that needs clarification.
I apologize if I came across as saying or adding anything
unnecessary, but I certainly have no intent, reason or benefit
in saying anything false, misleading, or inconsistent because that defeats my purpose.
My goal is to show that people can reconcile and it doesn't have to change our views or beliefs,
as long as we can forgive our differences and quit projecting so much that we cannot resolve these conflicts.
So most of the problems are coming from unforgiveness of past
conflicts that are being projected back and forth, such as accusing
me of lying when I had no such intent and doing so would defeat everything I am trying to do.
So I challenge MD to be completely transparent
and quit projecting unforgiven issues onto me so
badly as to accuse me of lying when that is the opposite of my intent.
If anyone can help mediate on that thread,
I appreciate it!
I believe the right approach will include and satisfy everyone's points
and resolve any conflicts. The only conflicts that cannot be resolved
is if people refuse to forgive and keep projecting or rejecting instead.
So my premise still stands, that the real factors that make the difference
are forgiveness/love and unforgiveness/fear. If people keep acting projecting
and rejecting out of fear, that is causing the problems; and even if people
remain either theistic or nontheistic in their beliefs, that can still be reconciled
as long as people are not afraid and they agree to forgive those differences.
Whatever is causing M.D. to project onto others, I challenge him to
stop and address this, instead of accusing me of BS and lying.
