-
Posts
-
Or, to get lip service from you or Brad, for that mater, and I don’t like it,
the attitude projected in this thread seem to parallel this Islamic type of specific fanaticism, where complex context is turned into a simplified distorted version of proclaiming of God’s word..
It seems to me it was you who included me in your accusations and insinuations….not Bonita. I have been a fellow student of Bonita’s exactly the same amount of time as with BB and Rick and Nigel and Mara and all others on the Forum. And, like Bonita, I am only a student here. Neither of us controls any part of the Forum nor the first nor the second editions prior to this one. I hope all here can be united and without uniformity. Your regular and continuous slander notwithstanding, I find a wide spectrum of perspective and experience with the UB on this and all other open forums I participate in. I will confess that in 40 years of study, I have never met another student with the scholarship and recall of the UB contents as Bonita….and she did not like me much when I first started studying with her but my sincerity as a student seems to have won her friendship over time it is true. I am very glad for that. But she only illuminates and integrates concepts presented in text for me and all others with the ears to hear and she posts endless text in support of every presentation and often admits some confusion about some issues that challenge even her scholarship and experience. I’m glad she’s here and happy to hear her voice. So you won’t insult me by such accusations Midi. And I speak as plainly as I am able.
Bradly, it says that this forum welcomes participants to a courteous environment …. feel comfortable expressing YOUR VIEWS. I did exactly that. I also make sure not to raise any discussion on channeling as we are instructed by TOS. Otherwise I am within the right to express by view about any TUB topic. But being called “friend of Lucifer” is not a courteous environment, would you not agree?
I think she said – “…..your friend Lucifer….” and was being sarcastic regarding her perception that she thinks you seem “obsessed” with rebellion, but I can understand you feeling offended rather than the butt of witty repoirtee . I am not here to defend others; Bonita and I are friends though, and I must confess some discomfort early on with her style of argumentation myself. I got over it once we shared some insights and some friendly jabs and resulting laughs and I become more familiar with her ability to teach and grasp on the literal text and her ability to integrate that text to demonstrate the consistency and redundancy of the text.
This forum, and all others, are primarily “self-governing” and rely on the civility and good intentions of participants and try to reduce the role of moderators or food fight referees in order for the posters to learn. While I have learned much about the UB from Bonita, I have learned the most about myself from those with whom I disagree with….I am learning (slowly) to recognize my own prejudices and over reactions to perceived insult and injury. A valuable lesson for me.
As to multiple forms of interpretation, you offered but one quote that specifically said that in regarding the Son as the representation of the Father to Local Universe creatures, that this is fact and truth ……no matter how you approach it. It is not logical that this statement is to then be inflated to mean thereby that the whole text is somehow figurative. Language symbols have limits. Human mind has limits. Revelation by word symbols and through mind has limits. This does not suggest, even slightly IMO, that the papers on rebellion are metaphorical presentations of some minor evolutionary church’s disputes about what is heresy one century and that which becomes heresy in another. The topic presented in the UB is universally profound; the interpretation of its meaning proferred is trivial in comparison. So which is it? Did the midwayers narrate church history? Or did they narrate a real event with real characters in real time with real results and implications? Can’t be both ways.
When I say that every reading of the UB brings greater clarity and delivers new meanings to me as student, I am not suggesting that I am learning to decipher codes and symbolisms and hidden allegorical meanings derived by new and enhanced perceptions. I meant it as an illustration that truth is only available to the degree with which the student can discern it and utilize it in experience and that experience opens greater perception of that which is written – not that which is not written or reading between the lines or drawing parallels to other events. There are many universal patterns and relationships presented which every mind of every experience will appreciate individually and uniquely and with greater perception, perhaps, with more reading and living.
And I do not attempt to convince any that they are “wrong” but am willing to offer a contrasting opinion when an issue interests me or feel it important to offer another point of view. You have offered some rather strong opinions of your own on this thread about those of us who have decades in the UB and offered some rather insulting generalizations and stereotyped accusations of your own about “us”, whoever “we” are. Funny that those who read the longest do come to agree on the literal facts of cosmology, process, source, and destiny presented in that which claims to be given precisely to eliminate factual errors and reduce philosophic confusion. But only those of us who come to believe the UB actually is revelation would ever by gullible enough to believe this claim too.
It is not a point that can be argued. If it is epochal revelation of facts and truths and is as plainly written as the authors could muster, that’s what it is. If not, then not. Those who believe it cannot prove it and those who dispute it cannot either. An impasse. So be it. So this is a difference without resolution. If some believe they need tea leaves or star charts to understand the text or other mortal words or means of illustrative comparison to find meaning within, fine. We believe what we believe and must do so. But when students come together to study the words given, the perspective of the book and its claims often bring disagreement. The challenge and opportunity in these times is how we express that disagreement and overcome it. I’m still working on that BB. I have always appreciated your challenging inquiry into the text….and I still do. Peace.
I think she said – “…..your friend Lucifer….” and was being sarcastic regarding her perception that she thinks you seem “obsessed” with rebellion, but I can understand you feeling offended rather than the butt of witty repoirtee .
I do not think she was being sarcastic. But let’s say she was, that sarcasm was very insulting. And as for my ‘obsession’… I have authored 16 topics on this forum. Of the 16 , two are dedicated to rebellion, which translates to 14 percent. That is a far cry from ‘obsession.’
This forum, and all others, are primarily “self-governing” and rely on the civility and good intentions of participants and try to reduce the role of moderators or food fight referees in order for the posters to learn.
We need moderators because it seems some are not able to self-govern. Imagine new comers witnessing these kinds of hostile exchanges. Perhaps that is why there is lack of participation? I don’t know. But it does make me wonder.
As to multiple forms of interpretation, you offered but one quote that specifically said that in regarding the Son as the representation of the Father to Local Universe creatures, that this is fact and truth ……no matter how you approach it. It is not logical that this statement is to then be inflated to mean thereby that the whole text is somehow figurative.
Then we can agree to disagree on that item.
Language symbols have limits. Human mind has limits. Revelation by word symbols and through mind has limits.
I agree
This does not suggest, even slightly IMO, that the papers on rebellion are metaphorical presentations of some minor evolutionary church’s disputes about what is heresy one century and that which becomes heresy in another.
You could be right that Church history has no bearing on TUB. But I think the topic warrants further research. In my opinion there are enough coincidences to warrant one. Also I don’t think I said that rebellion papers primarily are a metaphorical presentation. I do believe, however, that figurative, spiritual and personal meanings could be gleaned from them.
The topic presented in the UB is universally profound; the interpretation of its meaning proferred is trivial in comparison. So which is it? Did the midwayers narrate church history? Or did they narrate a real event with real characters in real time with real results and implications? Can’t be both ways.
Neither. My theory which is very weak, admittedly, is that Church history is a part of the rebellion history. The rebellion and its effects filtered down onto our world and throughout the ages.
When I say that every reading of the UB brings greater clarity and delivers new meanings to me as student, I am not suggesting that I am learning to decipher codes and symbolisms and hidden allegorical meanings derived by new and enhanced perceptions. I meant it as an illustration that truth is only available to the degree with which the student can discern it and utilize it in experience and that experience opens greater perception of that which is written – not that which is not written or reading between the lines or drawing parallels to other events.
I think that that is a matter of semantics. One can call it deciphering codes, another may call it expanding meanings or learning newer ones. Both lead to revelation in my opinion.
There are many universal patterns and relationships presented which every mind of every experience will appreciate individually and uniquely and with greater perception, perhaps, with more reading and living.
I agree.
And I do not attempt to convince any that they are “wrong” but am willing to offer a contrasting opinion when an issue interests me or feel it important to offer another point of view.
I respect and appreciate that because, actually, I post up some of my innovations to see if they can withstand scrutiny by veteran readers. That is how I gauge the strength of ideas.
You have offered some rather strong opinions of your own on this thread about those of us who have decades in the UB and offered some rather insulting generalizations and stereotyped accusations of your own about “us”, whoever “we” are.
I did not direct that accusation at anyone, per se. But it is an ongoing observation for me in my encounters with seasoned readers/believers. I believe that they, in general, have a very rigid mindset. I also think age plays a role; the older one is the more settled less open one gets. And this isn’t just limited to TUB. You will find this mindset in nearly all religions. I am surprised that you would be insulted when it was not directed at you personally. If you were insulted then I apologize. My intent was not to direct the statement at any one.
Funny that those who read the longest do come to agree on the literal facts of cosmology, process, source, and destiny presented in that which claims to be given precisely to eliminate factual errors and reduce philosophic confusion. But only those of us who come to believe the UB actually is revelation would ever by gullible enough to believe this claim too.
First let me say that I am not against a literal reading of TUB. However, I am against the idea that it is the only approach to take when reading the papers. I have met seasoned readers who do not think TUB is exclusive to a literal reading in the strictest sense of the word.
It is not a point that can be argued. If it is epochal revelation of facts and truths and is as plainly written as the authors could muster, that’s what it is. If not, then not.
I agree! Facts and “Truths.” Truth can be received from a personal, literal, spiritual or figurative point of view.
Those who believe it cannot prove it and those who dispute it cannot either. An impasse. So be it. So this is a difference without resolution. If some believe they need tea leaves or star charts to understand the text or other mortal words or means of illustrative comparison to find meaning within, fine. We believe what we believe and must do so. But when students come together to study the words given, the perspective of the book and its claims often bring disagreement. The challenge and opportunity in these times is how we express that disagreement and overcome it. I’m still working on that BB. I have always appreciated your challenging inquiry into the text….and I still do. Peace.
I will leave you with the following…
” You must cease to seek for the word of God only on the pages of the olden records of theologic authority. Those who are born of the spirit of God shall henceforth discern the word of God regardless of whence it appears to take origin. Divine truth must not be discounted because the channel of its bestowal is apparently human.”
Thank you for participating and I hope we continue to exchange ideas.
BB
I will leave you with the following… ” You must cease to seek for the word of God only on the pages of the olden records of theologic authority. Those who are born of the spirit of God shall henceforth discern the word of God regardless of whence it appears to take origin. Divine truth must not be discounted because the channel of its bestowal is apparently human.” Thank you for participating and I hope we continue to exchange ideas.
Glad to be here and I look forward to our continued discovery as fellow students!! As to the quote offered, again we come to the claim that the UB is not scripture nor the words of any human mind. It is not an “olden record of theologic authority” and is, rather, a timely and accurate text book of facts to eliminate error and reduce confusion – or not – and it claims to have been written as plainly and purposeful as possible given well defined constraints – if one is to believe its claims and why would one believe the first claim but not the second. However, we do agree and the book does instruct that epochal revelation is rare but that personal revelation is continuous and that anything and everything in our experience offers opportunity for the discovery of truth – even by its lack or absence, can truth yet be discovered by the seeking and discerning mind.
As to the church history issue: Aha!! I see said the blind man! So, you are saying, and have been all along regardless of my misunderstanding, that church history (and other histories) may reflect greater realities and patterns. What a putz I am. Okay. I agree that larger patterns of reality may also be found in smaller editions. And I did recognize previously that the subject of heresy and its response in heaven and on earth do offer interesting correlations to consider – as do many patterns, circumstances, consequences, etc. to free will choice. Sorry to be so dense. But this would not be the midwayers narrating church history as war in heaven but rather, interesting corollaries perhaps between two divergent events with some similarities. I’ve often wondered about how rebellion affected planets where the Prince remained loyal or the Material Son and Daughter did not default or the planet was further into epochal progress. The story of the rebellion seems very focused on our strange results and I wonder how unique that is…..it did result, according to text, in our world being chosen as the darkest and most “lost” of all worlds for Michael’s choice to illuminate God’s love to all of Nebadon. Fascinating indeed.
Thanks BB. I’ll be back.
It seems to me it was you who included me in your accusations and insinuations….not Bonita.
You can’t just put stuff like that out on a forum where new readers are just learning about the revelation and the truths contained within it. And since it’s just me and Brad who stand up against sophistries like that, I guess I’ll have to accept the role as “bad guy”. If you go off the rails, you can count on me coming around to try to get you back on. It’s a service I provide, like it or not.
Bradly, did you read Bonita’s post where I quoted the entire paragraph and recut the portions above which she said “me and Brad”, in implying only you and her “stand up against sophistries”, where the implication is that everything that Bonita has stated in this thread includes you as well, and by not denying that her inclusion of you in her statements, and through your supposed coming in defense of Bonita’s remarks like “hemorrhoid cream” and all the other inferences used, you agree with, if not I would retract my comment but I must say that “lip service” (“insincere expression of friendship, admiration, support, etc.; service by words only”) comes in many forms and would sustain a quid-pro-quo response. And I still don’t like the service being provided, “like it or not.”
MidiChlorian wrote: the attitude projected in this thread seem to parallel this Islamic type of specific fanaticism, where complex context is turned into a simplified distorted version of proclaiming of God’s word..
As to your other notation from one of my statements to B.B., I wrote the entire state/post to B.B., and in a specific written style which I’m sure that he understood what I was saying, but as usual it would seem that you may need to progress out of kindergarten and move up to a little higher grade, to be able to understand what I actually wrote. If need be I can translate for you, but to do so, so that you can understand it simply enough, it would require at least a page of text, and then I’m not sure that you would really understand what I actually said. If you would like to venture into the study of the Qur’an and how current day Clerics have used a similar principle and method to change the meaning of the context of the Qur’an, then maybe you would understand better. I’m assuming that my statement may have went over Bonita’s head as well, but check with her and see if she understood the language I was specking in print, with B.B.
Well Midi – your opinion of me is well articulated. I am not a designated opinionator and am not called, on any level, to champion anything to anyone. Except that is, that I do champion and serve the ministry (my term) of the dissemination of this book around the world so that others, of any education and IQ, might also enjoy this Revelation of illumination now and in time to come. And no, I neither agree nor understand everything said by anyone and I would say that Keryn very early on had very clear articulations of her perspective and that group wisdom is ideally a far better compass which is why BB has posted this and many other questions for peer response. I speak only for me and claim, still, only tadpole status of limited education…..but lots of sincerity and gusto!! Life is good. Thanks for the analysis. Peace.
Life is good. Thanks for the analysis.
Bradly, I’m glad that “Life is good”, for you, because there are far to many people and children in this world who cannot say that, but that seems to be the problem, if a problem cannot be seen then it doesn’t exist, so if the UB don’t say something then it don’t exist. Paraphrasing your words. As far as “analysis” goes, that would be a rhetorical way of saying that your statements which where designed to cut and twist something which you thought that I said, or meant, was just your way of slapping someone in the face and then saying that I really didn’t mean to do that because I didn’t know any better, then tern around and slap the other cheek, and say, doesn’t that feel better. I’ve been reading this from you for many years now but I must admit that it has become a little more subtle, buried in far more words than before. If your truly interested in burying the hatchet, you would ask question, about that which you assume, and are called wrong as to your insight, but as you say we are all students and are hear to learn. However, if you are a student and actually wish to learn something about other people then you might start by asking questions instead of attempting to insult their intelligence, where you admit only learning about yourself.
If this forum is meant for learning then the name forum should be changed because that is not the definition of forum. And if we are all students and in this case students of the UB then the Book should be the teacher but the book cannot teach it can only be read but the reading comprehension of so many readers is different and given a student/teacher who has a specific comprehension of a reading and takes it upon them self to teach their comprehension only creates clones of that teacher.
To state that the UB is written in plain simple language and is fact and truth, which cannot be verified, is another way of saying that fiction is fact and truth. Then to think that after death that we will travel from one planet to another for an indefinite period of time would prior to death just make one believe that the space ship is waiting to take us away, or to beam us up. Why write the book as if it is a science fiction novel without putting some actual verifiable facts in it which can be acted upon, instead of taking its context by faith only.
P,S,: I was not able to finish due to lack of battery power but in addition to my last statement, where I wanted to parallel on your indication that the UB is simple literal text, and it says what it says, I would ask, if it is so simple and understandable by literal reading then what of the science presented in the text? If you have no understanding of science then anything which is written in scientific narration would just, by those who are looking for something else, be either interpreted as gobbledygook, and considered as immaterial of fodder, especially if your primary interest is of a religious or theological nature. If as you say that the UB is simply stated then what of the following words used in its text, how do they parallel to your interest of study: “segregate”, “ultimate”, “triata”, “gravita”, “ultimation(s)”, “ultimatonic”, “infraultimatonic”, just to name a few, but if these words are unique to the UB then there must be some parallel to our word symbols which are meant to be corrected it at all or just organized in such a way as to understand correctly. If you take a simplified understanding or ignore that which you do not understand, then what has been presented is for someone else not you. But, don’t throughout the baby with the bath water because of lack of interest or understanding. Get to know those who think differently and ask questions instead of throwing stones, especially if we all live in glass houses.
You got it wrong, Bonita. I did not say I won’t be talking about that “nonsense.” I said I won’t have this discussion WITH YOU. Understood?
Yes. And that is a tremendous relief, actually. Thank you. Thank you very much.
And if you harass and stalk me I will lodge a complaint against you with the board’s administration.
That sounds a bit paranoid. And please feel free to lodge all the complaints you like, but it does sound little bit like bullying to me. Are you threatening me or taunting me? I can’t tell, but since you have slammed the door shut to further discussion, I’ll have to interpret it my own closed minded way.
You know B.B., that this thread has become a true type assimilation of ‘Church history as “War in Heaven”?’ Where this thread has become an example of how Islamic Clerics turned moderate Islam into various terroristic sects, where one or few individuals who project a complex viewpoint into a simplified distortion of what was a religious viewpoint into closed minded laws as proclaimed by men, instead of God, where by self proclaimed authority, becomes Deified in the minds of men.
I know! Right? It’s so true! Here we have a few posters who project distorted viewpoints of simple concepts and self-proclaim them as reality. For instance, someone said that the Universal Father rebelled against the Eternal Son who was keeping him fettered. Now that is a wickedly distorted idea designed to portray the Universal Father as a weakling struggling against his evil Son. Funny how that sounds so similar to what Lucifer claimed, that the Paradise Sons created the myth of the Universal Father as a fraud to maintain power. Those darn Sons were evil, doing bad things just like the Eternal Son.
Now isn’t that a bunch of putrid hogwash put forth by someone attempting to turn moderate UB concepts into something ugly? You’re right! That IS like terrorism. Thanks for pointing that out.
By my estimation, Bonita was the one who went on the personal attack.
Hmmm, sigh . . . . Let’s go back to the beginning of this thread and see if what you said is true. Back on page two you said the following:
#10877 You and Bonita were staunchly against his interpretation. And that is just one of several episodes of finding fault in Chris’ interpretation of TUB. Yet all three of you are seasoned readers. If anything, and this is no reflection on you, I think seasoned readers are the most rigid and close minded, having been set in their particular understanding for so many years, any new or foreign concept nearly instantly is rejected out of hand.
Okay . . . so you don’t think name-calling is a personal attack. I get that. You think you’re just making an observation by calling someone rigid and close minded. Right? You think that it’s just an innocent and harmless statement which should cause no offense whatsoever. Right. Maybe I would agree if it didn’t get repeated so often. For instance, you also said:
#11335 Not surprised at all. I understand I am dealing with readers who have held a certain views for many years. Those kinds of readers on average are very close minded.
There it is again! that “close minded” comment. I’m sure you meant no offense, but darn, that’s twice you called me a name and I turned the other cheek both times. Funny thing about that, it didn’t stop you, did it? You just kept it up.
#11452 It is sarcastic replies like this that convince me you are close minded, Bonita.
So okay, being personally attacked three times pushes my buttons. Sorry. But remind me again . . . who attacked who? Oh, that’s right. You’re not talking to me. Can you see why I’m so happy about that? Don’t bother answering.
Midi – I’ll not waste everyone’s time defending myself from your multiple accusations and I don’t even pretend to understand much of what you wrote but I’ll attempt a response to some of your points.
As to teachers: we are taught that the universe is actually a university of learning and that we all must both learn and teach to learn best. Everyone teaches in a way. The student teaches by the questions they ask, and the explanations they then challenge or require, and by the presentation and defense of their knowledge, understanding, and conclusions. So I do not understand the clone issue….except and until there is but one teacher/guru with “followers” who accept the guru as an authority and adopt the dogma offered up…..as opposed to a teacher’s true role which is founded on the transfer of knowledge and information (education) and not on the interpretation of that knowledge and information (creedal propaganda). On a public forum such as this, all learn and all teach in one way or another. And a forum is a place for the discussion of ideas and ideals and for debating the merits of those positions, especially those which find opposition. Such is a patterned process that seems common at every level of Local Universe affairs.
Fiction is not fact….by definition. And just because the UB does not mention something does not in any way result in its non-existence. When I say the UB says what it says and doesn’t say what it doesn’t I mean that those who declare the UB says so and so or what it says means such and such, that the text itself is the authoritative source for what it does say and what it means to say…..and that the individual’s interpretation or reiteration of what the book says must stand the scrutiny of what the book actually says – or does not say. Sorry this seems so confusing to you but I think it clear enough.
It is true that not all of the book is of interest to all students equally and this, I think, demonstrates its comprehensive spectrum of knowledge presented to help bridge the human gap or chasm dividing religion and science we know today. It must present both the spiritual side of our nature and the material side to appeal to and construct that central role that philosophy takes in unifying these dual realities inherent in our level of being – the dual nature of humanity and its place in the cosmos. I do not understand much of the science presented to be sure….but I love to read the excitement of the “science” folk on multiple forums as they build new theorems and compare mortal science with that presented in the UB. The readership is larger based on the spectrum of facts presented and their relationship that delivers both context and perspective for the broadest audience possible. There’s something for everyone including sociologists, historians, mathematicians, religionists, atomic and astro physicists, philosophers, and many others. Its comprehensive nature is purposeful and functional….if not inclusive of the totality of all facts and reality which would neither fit in a book (or library) and would include that which is incomprehensible to us and would violate the evolutionary, time based, process of required experience.
As to the claim that the book is written literally and as clearly as possible within the limits of language, words, and audience comprehension, I only repeat what the book itself claims for itself. You dispute the book’s claim on this and not mine if you say otherwise. You may believe it fiction or allegory if you wish. I don’t. We’ll just disagree on that one. I’ll leave your personal commentary and well intended advice as posted and without comment, except I often do learn more from those I do not readily understand or agree with than from those whose understanding is closer to my own – that’s good advice Midi. Thanks.
Why is it I find myself in a contentious atmosphere only with Bonita? I do not have this problem with any other participant.
Dude, there are no other participants except , who seems to be like-minded with you. It looks like you have a problem when someone is not like-minded with you. Well welcome to the real world. Chances are that most of the world will have a different opinion than you on about almost everything. If you get defensive every time your ideas are challenged by someone who has a different idea, you’re going go live a very narrow life with your boxers always in a wad. Seems to me that it takes two parties to make a discussion and rarely do two parties agree. So don’t make it sound like you’re the victim here. Wouldn’t it look ridiculous if I became a big crybaby just because you disagree with me? When I have a different opinion, I have the courage to back it up and stand by it. I’m not exhausted by the discussion, nor do I refuse to make the effort to do the research, nor does it bother me to take the enormous amount of time necessary to compose a supporting post. It seems to me that something is really wrong here, but I don’t think that you’re the victim you claim to be . . . . looking at it objectively, that is.
Give me a break! Bonita. I said ” If anything, and this is no reflection on you, I think seasoned readers are the most rigid and close minded”.I made it a point to let you know, at the time (as it was too early to judge), that this was NOT directed towards you. However the exchange reminded me of the close mindedness people can have. Remember, I am the one who introduced this innovation. I would expect people to approach it with an open mind. Anyway, as the exchanges progressed I began to realize that you were fitting that criteria! Now my tone changes and I posted my feelings in effort at least to put you on notice and perhaps dissuade you from closing your mind! There was NO OFFENSE on my part, still. Plus accusing someone of being close minded is not an insult. However YOU HURLED YOUR OFFENSES RIGHT AT ME from the jump. Once you started your sarcastic and sly remarks then I realized that you were indeed close minded to my views, and I wasted time going back and forth with you; all my effort posting was in vain. Here I am discussing a topic with someone whose mind had already been made. Wow. A waste. And let me say this… accusing someone of being close minded is nothing compared to accusing someone of being “friends with Lucifer.” Lucifer was AN EVIL being. Being close minded does not make you evil. Get it, Bonita? NO MORAL EQUIVALENCE..Now… here is the beginning of you affronting me. Tell me, why should I take someone making disrespectful remarks like you seriously?Me: If you can show me Hebrew scripture with the angel “Lucifer” listed then I will concede to your point. I have studied Hebrew scripture for over 20 years and never came across it. Lucifer is a Latin invention imported to Christian (and Arab) scripture, post Judeo era..Me: Bonita, I am very well acquainted with Hebrew scripture. Clicking on that link is not a task for me to indulge in as I have done the necessary study and research for 20 plus years. I am firm on my position regarding angels and Hebrew scripture. The onus is on you to present a scripture seeing as you are the one challenging what I had put forth..Your sly remark: …I know you are proud of your 20 years of study, but I have more than a decade on you . . .This was the beginning of your blatant disrespects, Bonita. BTW…, I have gone through this nonsense with you on a previous site, and YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE I SEEM TO HAVE THIS PROBLEM WITH. Why?By my estimation, Bonita was the one who went on the personal attack.
Hmmm, sigh . . . . Let’s go back to the beginning of this thread and see if what you said is true. Back on page two you said the following:
#10877 You and Bonita were staunchly against his interpretation. And that is just one of several episodes of finding fault in Chris’ interpretation of TUB. Yet all three of you are seasoned readers. If anything, and this is no reflection on you, I think seasoned readers are the most rigid and close minded, having been set in their particular understanding for so many years, any new or foreign concept nearly instantly is rejected out of hand.
Okay . . . so you don’t think name-calling is a personal attack. I get that. You think you’re just making an observation by calling someone rigid and close minded. Right? You think that it’s just an innocent and harmless statement which should cause no offense whatsoever. Right. Maybe I would agree if it didn’t get repeated so often. For instance, you also said:
#11335 Not surprised at all. I understand I am dealing with readers who have held a certain views for many years. Those kinds of readers on average are very close minded.
There it is again! that “close minded” comment. I’m sure you meant no offense, but darn, that’s twice you called me a name and I turned the other cheek both times. Funny thing about that, it didn’t stop you, did it? You just kept it up.
#11452 It is sarcastic replies like this that convince me you are close minded, Bonita.
So okay, being personally attacked three times pushes my buttons. Sorry. But remind me again . . . who attacked who? Oh, that’s right. You’re not talking to me. Can you see why I’m so happy about that? Don’t bother answering.
BB
And as for my ‘obsession’… I have authored 16 topics on this forum. Of the 16 , two are dedicated to rebellion, which translates to 14 percent. That is a far cry from ‘obsession.
I think if you go back and look at all of your POSTS on all three incarnations of this forum, there is an inordinate preoccupation, on your part, with the rebellion and the parties involved in it. In fact, if you look closely, you will find that the greatest amount of chaos and confusion arose on those very threads on the rebellion. Isn’t that exactly the very thing that Lucifer aimed to do? To create confusion and chaos? It’s kinda spooky.
And as for my ‘obsession’… I have authored 16 topics on this forum. Of the 16 , two are dedicated to rebellion, which translates to 14 percent. That is a far cry from ‘obsession.
I think if you go back and look at all of your POSTS on all three incarnations of this forum, there is an inordinate preoccupation, on your part, with the rebellion and the parties involved in it. In fact, if you look closely, you will find that the greatest amount of chaos and confusion arose on those very threads on the rebellion. Isn’t that exactly the very thing that Lucifer aimed to do? To create confusion and chaos? It’s kinda spooky.
Try again, Bonita. The FACT IS, I have posted 16 topics to this forum. Of the 16 ONLY TWO touch on the topic of rebellion. That amounts to 14 percent. 14 percent does not even come close to OBSESSION. My turn now….. I think YOU are obsessed with harassing people who do not tow your view of TUB. And I also think you EXAGGERATE. How’s that, Bonita? Fair assessment?
BB
Login to reply to this topic.
Not registered? Sign up here.