A medieval question for you, if you believe in god....

by snare&racket 55 Replies latest jw friends

  • Viviane
    Viviane

    by default power without love and consideration is ruthless

    Prove that. Power could be motivated by pity but not love, by hate of one thing but not love of another thing. You are asserting a mutual exclusiveness that you haven't proven. All your work is ahead of you.

    take away the' so called" limitation of God's love what is left ? .. ruthless love

    It's not so-called, it is. And rutheless is not what's left since you haven't proven it's not motivated by hate of something else and not simply a lack of love.

    How can limiting love be anything but a negative and ruthless love ?

    Well, you just used your premise as your conclusion, so I am not sure what you are asking. Perhaps if we put this in math terms? Just because X doesn't = Y doesn't mean it equals the opposite of Y, it could mean nothing or an entire range of things that are not Y, like red or seashell or decay rate of uranium. Similarly, power NOT limited by love could equal any number of things besides rutheless, such as hate, comfort, desire, time of day, how a person in Australia slept last night, etc.

    You are simply asserting it MUST be ruthless because you haven't explored or conceived or any other options.

    You know what a quote is right ?

    You know what by default means right ?

    Of course. That's why I used both accurately, silly bear!

  • caliber
    caliber

    Your blunder calling a question a quote is at the end of post 335 in black and white ,yet you still deny it

    Don't you think people can read this in plain english and see who is telling the truth ?

  • Viviane
    Viviane

    Your blunder calling a question a quote is at the end of post 335 in black and white ,yet you still deny it

    I deny nothing because there is no blunder. I quoted your question and asked who said what you were asserting. It's quite telling that you refuse to asnwer and instead choose to attempt to obfuscate instead of prove a single one of your points. Quite telling indeed. Almost like you realize your mistske and instead want to accuse others of making your mistake.

    Don't you think people can read this in plain english and see who is telling the truth ?

    Indeed, I think they are quite capable of recognizing your errors. Can you?

  • sparrowdown
    sparrowdown

    Oh snare you do know how to set the paradoxical cat amongst the metaphorical pigeons.

  • snare&racket
  • sparrowdown
    sparrowdown

    Ha, Good one........ I feel sorry for the cats.

    sparrow

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit