Missing piece in Genesis 5

[rewriter]

So, it appears that this book you recommend has made no reported positive impact on your or anyone else’s life. So, what is the point of my reading it? I alredy believe people have the ability to affect events at a distance. That is what my and others' effectual fervent prayer does.

No, what it appears is that you profess to be willing to learn, but will continually mount reasons to delay. You present yourself as someone who drums and plays the tambourine to accompany a cappella singers. You cite what qualifies as unsupported belief as preferable over supported scientific fact. Oh, but the scientifically supported facts might challenge your unsupported belief and that cannot be allowed, your beliefs might be shown to have errors, and that cannot be allowed.,

 

[PaulThomson]

No, what it appears is that you profess to be willing to learn, but will continually mount reasons to delay. You present yourself as someone who drums and plays the tambourine to accompany a cappella singers. You cite what qualifies as unsupported belief as preferable over supported scientific fact. Oh, but the scientifically supported facts might challenge your unsupported belief and that cannot be allowed, your beliefs might be shown to have errors, and that cannot be allowed.,

Wow! You are a terrible mind-reader. If you have nothing to offer, why are you posting here? All I have read from you is self -promoting praise of your own insightfulness and claims that others have been impressed by your work. But I have not read anything yet from you that would confirm your claims. What is it that you think you know? and what scientific facts can you cite that prove that knowledge?

 

[rewriter]

Wow! You are a terrible mind-reader. If you have nothing to offer, why are you posting here? All I have read from you is self -promoting praise of your own insightfulness and claims that others have been impressed by your work. But I have not read anything yet from you that would confirm your claims. What is it that you think you know? and what scientific facts can you cite that prove that knowledge?

Keep banging away to accompany a cappella singers. You asked for one thing and then added on more requests. You want what you consider proof from me, while you have not offered any proof of your claims of being willing to learn, rather you offer proof against your willingness. I have work recognized in academic fields, I point to towards introductory work, not work intended to prove anything along the lines of what you want proof for, but work to lay the groundwork, and you object. Tell me, did you have that attitude in first grade, telling the teacher that unless what is being taught will allow you to understand how computers work by the time the class is completed that you were not interested or did you listen to the FACT that there is much you need to learn in order to get to the point you CLAIM you want to end up at. What you seem to want is to be spoon fed, I thought I was addressing someone who was capable of at least beginning to feed themselves and rather than bat at a spoon when they don't think they like what is on it, at least capable of picking up a fork and tasting the different food all on their own. So sorry I overestimated your maturity,

 

[rewriter]

Wow! You are a terrible mind-reader. If you have nothing to offer, why are you posting here? All I have read from you is self -promoting praise of your own insightfulness and claims that others have been impressed by your work. But I have not read anything yet from you that would confirm your claims. What is it that you think you know? and what scientific facts can you cite that prove that knowledge?

It occurs to me that there is one figure that might catch your attention, not likely but perhaps. In the USA, based on a total population of roughly 300 million, there are likely 15-20 million (5-7%) people living who would rapidly catch what I am saying and support it based on their life experiences and how those experiences have changed their lives for the better. Now I admit that if I were to use the official estimates, it would be 12-30 million (4-10%), but I prefer a narrower range. There is an excellent chance you know some of these people. likely some are in CC, but I respect their privacy and will not offer more information about them. But just that little hint is capable of letting them know a good bit about part of my approach.

 

[PaulThomson]

It occurs to me that there is one figure that might catch your attention, not likely but perhaps. In the USA, based on a total population of roughly 300 million, there are likely 15-20 million (5-7%) people living who would rapidly catch what I am saying and support it based on their life experiences and how those experiences have changed their lives for the better. Now I admit that if I were to use the official estimates, it would be 12-30 million (4-10%), but I prefer a narrower range. There is an excellent chance you know some of these people. likely some are in CC, but I respect their privacy and will not offer more information about them. But just that little hint is capable of letting them know a good bit about part of my approach.

Wow. You have cast me a hint at some alleged truth that 5-7 % of people you claim would rapidly understand, because they are the only ones as wise as you. So, presumably, if I don’t get the hint and recognise what you are referring to based on that hint, you consider me too dense to grasp your high gnosis and so unworthy of becoming one of your acolytes who may be introduced into the hallowed ranks of entry level students in your school. If you can’t, in your next post, actually begin to sketch out the general theory and the evidentiary facts behind your allusions to your having brilliant insights into reality and the into truth about God, then I will put you on ignore, if that feature is still available here.

 

[rewriter]

Wow. You have cast me a hint at some alleged truth that 5-7 % of people you claim would rapidly understand, because they are the only ones as wise as you. So, presumably, if I don’t get the hint and recognise what you are referring to based on that hint, you consider me too dense to grasp your high gnosis and so unworthy of becoming one of your acolytes who may be introduced into the hallowed ranks of entry level students in your school. If you can’t, in your next post, actually begin to sketch out the general theory and the evidentiary facts behind your allusions to your having brilliant insights into reality and the into truth about God, then I will put you on ignore, if that feature is still available here.

Well, I never expected you to catch my reference to 5-7% of the population. It is a widely posted figure, but then one must place their head on top of their neck instead of keeping it in a lower and darker place. As for a more direct statement, as I have said before, I find that tradition proclaims certain historical facts "clearly irrelevant" and totally ignores them. Paying attention to them, and they are extremely well documented, and some even have archeological support, paints a much different picture than tradition holds to, and one that allows unresolvable by tradition issues in the NT to easily be resolved. They also allow far more interconnections in the NT than tradition does.

Now tradition holds that terrible things will happen to the church if some things are exposed, but that boogeyman is long dead. If the Church cannot withstand the light of day, how will it stand under the light of God? So, one last question for you to doge and seek to deflect Paul Thomson, you who claims to love the truth, are you brave enough to actually seek the truth, or will you choose to hide in the darkness by demanding more and more evidence in an unending maneuver to avoid having to look? You have been given a single source to begin to look at, demands about what it may or may not reveal are a dodge. Look, be prepared to show that you have seriously looked, or admit your cowardice. If you show positive action, I will respond accordingly, if you show further delay, I will not bother with you as you are a hypocrite. And by the way, you routinely show admiration for a scientist who supports the work begun by Jahn and Dunne, you have openly admitted to that admiration, you likely to not even know it.

 

[PaulThomson]

Well, I never expected you to catch my reference to 5-7% of the population. It is a widely posted figure, but then one must place their head on top of their neck instead of keeping it in a lower and darker place. As for a more direct statement, as I have said before, I find that tradition proclaims certain historical facts "clearly irrelevant" and totally ignores them. Paying attention to them, and they are extremely well documented, and some even have archeological support, paints a much different picture than tradition holds to, and one that allows unresolvable by tradition issues in the NT to easily be resolved. They also allow far more interconnections in the NT than tradition does.

Now tradition holds that terrible things will happen to the church if some things are exposed, but that boogeyman is long dead. If the Church cannot withstand the light of day, how will it stand under the light of God? So, one last question for you to doge and seek to deflect Paul Thomson, you who claims to love the truth, are you brave enough to actually seek the truth, or will you choose to hide in the darkness by demanding more and more evidence in an unending maneuver to avoid having to look? You have been given a single source to begin to look at, demands about what it may or may not reveal are a dodge. Look, be prepared to show that you have seriously looked, or admit your cowardice. If you show positive action, I will respond accordingly, if you show further delay, I will not bother with you as you are a hypocrite. And by the way, you routinely show admiration for a scientist who supports the work begun by Jahn and Dunne, you have openly admitted to that admiration, you likely to not even know it.

You have written many words here, but have communicated nothing . I am not going to waste any more time trying to get information from you. Grace and peace.