How and why do angels fight?

[Jan Ardena]

Dywyddy,

which is a claim that that ability engenders free will. If that's NOT what you meant the please rewrite it to make your meaning clear.

I'm aware of what I wrote.
I asked for an explanation.

Are there such people?

yes.

Firstly you'd have to show that there ARE such people, and then you'd have to show that your claim actually is the case.

Do you know what sense-gratification is?

It's also possible that if there are such people then their choices are also limited

And?

...since they, as you claimed, are interested only in gratification of the senses. Ergo, no choice about education or anything else that doesn't gratify their senses.

They can obtain education to secure a well-paid job, which can create more means to gratify the senses. It can be obtained to gain respect, which is gratification of the senses. Most things we do is a bid to gratify our own senses.

This is syntactically meaningless.

Which part didn't you understand?

And this is based on... what, exactly? A wild guess?

Life experience.

jan.

 

[Dywyddyr]

I'm aware of what I wrote.
I asked for an explanation.

I gave an explanation.
You claimed that that ability engenders free will. I have asked you to explain why you think so or reword what you wrote if that's not what you meant.

yes.

And of course I'll just take your word for it. Not really.
Source please.

Do you know what sense-gratification is?

Yes.
The fact that the term exists does not also means it's fact that there exist "People whose lives are based purely based on gratification of the senses"

And?

And what? If you'd bothered to read the entire sentence you'd have seen my point.

They can obtain education to secure a well-paid job, which can create more means to gratify the senses. It can be obtained to gain respect, which is gratification of the senses.

No. Since a job is generally not gratifying to the senses they'd avoid it, wouldn't they? Maybe you worded your claim incorrectly.

Most things we do is a bid to gratify our own senses.

Support this please.

Which part didn't you understand?

I didn't say I didn't understand it, I said it was meaningless. You started the sentence with the words "Now if you..."and failed to add anything that closed the clause. An "if" leads to a "then".

Life experience.

Oh. Your life experience.
Contradicted by mine.
Point failed.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Dywyddyr,

I gave an explanation.

No you didn't.
Read the whole statement.

You claimed that that ability engenders free will. I have asked you to explain why you think so or reword what you wrote if that's not what you meant.

No I didn't.
Read the whole statement.

Yes. The fact that the term exists does not also means it's fact that there exist "People whose lives are based purely based on gratification of the senses"

Do people do things their own benefit, most of the time?

No. Since a job is generally not gratifying to the senses they'd avoid it, wouldn't they? Maybe you worded your claim incorrectly.

It is a means to an end, which is more than likely some form of gratification.

Support this please.

I don't need, just ask yourself why you do most of things you do.
Then go ask your family and friends.

I didn't say I didn't understand it,...

Good!
If you understand it then my job is done.

Oh. Your life experience.
Contradicted by mine.
Point failed.

Don't believe you.

jan.

 

[Dywyddyr]

No you didn't.
Read the whole statement.

This statement?

They possessed "sensuality", the ability to feel pleasure, pain, guilt, remorse, love, hate, and so on. With that comes choice, of wanting to experience something because it gives pleasure. Or disliking something because it is painfull. This indicates that prior their decent onto the earth, their angelic bodies were immuned to these sensations.

Carry on. Maybe you should learn English, since you're evidently incapable of saying what you mean.

Do people do things their own benefit, most of the time?

No.

It is a means to an end, which is more than likely some form of gratification.

Ah, so you misworded your original statement.

I don't need, just ask yourself why you do most of things you do.
Then go ask your family and friends.

So you don't have anything to support your claim.

Good!
If you understand it then my job is done.

Yes, you should learn English. Because you're also evidently incapable of reading.

Don't believe you.

Exactly.
Yet you make a claim based on your experience and expect it to be taken at face value.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Dywyddyr,

This statement?

Carry on. Maybe you should learn English, since you're evidently incapable of saying what you mean.

Huh??
What are you talking about?
Do you remember why you brought this up in the first place?

No.

So you spend your day doing things for others without wanting anything in return?

Ah, so you misworded your original statement.

No.
Try reading it properly.

Exactly.
Yet you make a claim based on your experience and expect it to be taken at face value.

I don't expect anything.
You asked me a question, and I answered it.
If you think I'm wrong or mistaken then stop babbling and point it out.

jan.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Huh??
What are you talking about?
Do you remember why you brought this up in the first place?

I am asking why you seem to think that sensuality/ emotions engenders free will. Or, alternatively, if this is not what you meant to rephrase your statement.

So you spend your day doing things for others without wanting anything in return?

Does a father do things for his own benefit most of the time? Or he does go to work to feed his wife and children? I.e. their benefit?

No.
Try reading it properly.

I did.

I don't expect anything.
You asked me a question, and I answered it.
If you think I'm wrong or mistaken then stop babbling and point it out.

I did point it out. My experience contradicts yours and you haven't provided any other answer.
Your response was that you don't believe my experience is true. Why should I believe yours is? You'll have to do better.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Dywyddyr,

I am asking why you seem to think that sensuality/ emotions engenders free will. Or, alternatively, if this is not what you meant to rephrase your statement.

I don't think that.
Now that you have decided to use the whole statement
point out what you mean.

Does a father do things for his own benefit most of the time? Or he does go to work to feed his wife and children? I.e. their benefit?

As both wife and children are objects of the senses, his work is not only for their benefit, but for his own.

I did.

Fail!

I did point it out. My experience contradicts yours and you haven't provided any other answer.
Your response was that you don't believe my experience is true. Why should I believe yours is? You'll have to do better.

Why does your experience contradict mine. ?

jan.

 

[Dywyddyr]

I don't think that.
Now that you have decided to use the whole statement point out what you mean.

ONE MORE TIME: "With that comes choice". That DIRECTLY indicates that choice comes from sensuality/ emotion in your opinion.

As both wife and children are objects of the senses, his work is not only for their benefit, but for his own.

In other words you're extending the meaning of sense gratification beyond its actual meaning. You'll have to provide your definition.

Fail!

Wrong again.

Why does your experience contradict mine. ?

because in my experience it's not as you claim. Simple.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Dywyddyr,

ONE MORE TIME: "With that comes choice". That DIRECTLY indicates that choice comes from sensuality/ emotion in your opinion.

ONE MORE TIME: Read the whole thing.

In other words you're extending the meaning of sense gratification beyond its actual meaning. You'll have to provide your definition.

I don't have to provide anything.
If you think I'm wrong, then point it out.

Wrong again.

Fail! (again)

..because in my experience it's not as you claim. Simple.

So what is your experience?

jan.

 

[Dywyddyr]

ONE MORE TIME: Read the whole thing.

I have. More than once. You have specifically stated that with sensuality/ emotion comes choice.
If you have a different interpretation then you have failed (as I have pointed out numerous times) to express your position with any clarity. And further refusal to do so is nothing more than intellectual cowardice or utter stupidity.

I don't have to provide anything.

On the contrary, since you have made the claim then it's up to you to substantiate it.

If you think I'm wrong, then point it out.

What do you think "No" means? I have pointed out that you're wrong.

Fail! (again)

Once more displaying your abysmal comprehension.

So what is your experience?

Can you read at all? Can you follow an argument?
You have made a claim based on your experience. Regardless of whether or not my experience does contradict yours (it does, but that's not the point) your failure to accept my personal claim while at the same time offering nothing other than yours is gross hypocrisy. Do you get it now?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Dywyddyr,

I have. More than once. You have specifically stated that with sensuality/ emotion comes choice.

You see how you presented it.
Your presentation mised out a large chunk which gave explanation.
Either deal with the whole statement or leave it.
Then I will discuss with you.

If you have a different interpretation then you have failed (as I have pointed out numerous times) to express your position with any clarity.

You have failed in your character, as you are purposely attempting to create
a bridge where one isn't, for the sole purpose of try to discredit me, or diminish my person.

And further refusal to do so is nothing more than intellectual cowardice or utter stupidity.

That applies to you, as you are afraid to enter into any real discussion with me, and thinking that I cannot see you for what you are.

On the contrary, since you have made the claim then it's up to you to substantiate it.

I have substantiated it.
If you think I'm wrong state why.

What do you think "No" means? I have pointed out that you're wrong.

Where?
Remind me.

Can you read at all? Can you follow an argument?
You have made a claim based on your experience. Regardless of whether or not my experience does contradict yours (it does, but that's not the point) your failure to accept my personal claim while at the same time offering nothing other than yours is gross hypocrisy. Do you get it now?

There is no argument.
You asked me a question, I answered.
You disagreed.
I ask why..
And you refuse to answer.
You're a coward.

Keep that ball, because it shall remain in your court untill
you develop the courage to enter into a real discussion, instead of
continuosly trying keep it in my court.


jan.

 

[Dywyddyr]

You see how you presented it.
Your presentation mised out a large chunk which gave explanation.
Either deal with the whole statement or leave it.
Then I will discuss with you.

Since you obviously have zero comprehension of English there's no point continuing to discuss this with you. Your persistent refusal to either acknowledge your claim or provide an explanation as to why my interpretation is wrong is despicable.

You have failed in your character, as you are purposely attempting to create a bridge where one isn't, for the sole purpose of try to discredit me, or diminish my person.

Wrong again. You made a statement which you later said I was interpreting incorrectly. You have refused to reword it or provide any further elucidation. This leads me to conclude that, as stated above, you're either incapable of comprehending what you ACTUALLY wrote or that you did mean it and are now trying to escape the consequences.

That applies to you, as you are afraid to enter into any real discussion with me, and thinking that I cannot see you for what you are.

And this is false on all counts.

I have substantiated it.

Not so.

If you think I'm wrong state why.

If you care to actually read my posts you will see that I have done so.

Where?
Remind me.

There is no argument.
You asked me a question, I answered.
You disagreed.
I ask why..
And you refuse to answer.
You're a coward.

This is more of your evasive dishonesty. As I have pointed out, my answer was exactly the same as yours, yet you refused to accept mine as valid.

You are dishonest, evasive and unprepared (or unwilling) to even attempt to support your "arguments".

 

[Jan Ardena]

Dywyddyr,

Since you obviously have zero comprehension of English there's no point continuing to discuss this with you.

Seeing as you are a coward, part of that statement may have some merit to it.

Your persistent refusal to either acknowledge your claim or provide an explanation as to why my interpretation is wrong is despicable.

Your persistant to read the statement as a whole, instead of editing it to try and score points, is pathetic.

Wrong again. You made a statement which you later said I was interpreting incorrectly.

Look at the presentation you provided, and tell me if that is the entirety of what I wrote?

You have refused to reword it or provide any further elucidation.

I don't need to, it's perfectly understandable.

This leads me to conclude that, as stated above, you're either incapable of comprehending what you ACTUALLY wrote or that you did mean it and are now trying to escape the consequences.

Your failure to quote me correctly, and chopping text and screwing with it's meaning leads me to conclude that you are a coward. You do understand what I mean but you acting as though you don't. Dishonest.

And this is false on all counts.

Is it?

If you care to actually read my posts you will see that I have done so.

No you haven't.
You are only interested in diminishing my character.
You have no interest in the subject of religion, or God, other than to discredit it.

This is more of your evasive dishonesty. As I have pointed out, my answer was exactly the same as yours, yet you refused to accept mine as valid.

I was okay with the answer.
I just didn't believe you.

You are dishonest, evasive and unprepared (or unwilling) to even attempt to support your "arguments".

That's what you'd like me to be.
You need closure.
But you're not going to get it from me.

jan.

 

[Dywyddyr]

I don't need to, it's perfectly understandable.

Since I have, multiple times, shown I do NOT understand what you meant, isn't that an indicator that you're wrong?
My first reply was an indication that I had misunderstood you, as was each and every other time I pointed out what my interpretation was. Therefore your claim that it is "perfectly understandable" is demonstrably false.
And your claim that I am being dishonest because I "do understand what [you] mean but [I act] as though don't" is simply your (erroneous) interpretation. Or a deliberate lie.


As for the rest of your post, it's more lies, ascription and stupidity.

You are only interested in diminishing my character.

And this accusation, which you have used a number of times merely illustrates your own insecurity.
Grow up. Get over yourself.

 

[EmptyForceOfChi]

Dywyddyr,



Seeing as you are a coward, part of that statement may have some merit to it.




Your persistant to read the statement as a whole, instead of editing it to try and score points, is pathetic.




Look at the presentation you provided, and tell me if that is the entirety of what I wrote?




I don't need to, it's perfectly understandable.




Your failure to quote me correctly, and chopping text and screwing with it's meaning leads me to conclude that you are a coward. You do understand what I mean but you acting as though you don't. Dishonest.



Is it?




No you haven't.
You are only interested in diminishing my character.
You have no interest in the subject of religion, or God, other than to discredit it.



I was okay with the answer.
I just didn't believe you.



That's what you'd like me to be.
You need closure.
But you're not going to get it from me.

jan.

Don't get caught up in cyclical diss-honesty.


As salam Alaikum

 

[Jan Ardena]

Don't get caught up in cyclical diss-honesty.


As salam Alaikum

thank
jan.