ah well, we have a means to determine this, right, and we are surrounded by a cloud of witnesses, Naomi, and International crowd now right, and i am not afraid to "lose" a debate bc then i learn something; so bam now is the time imo, if my understanding is inferior in that area--which it surely still is ok, no arg there--then start your argument!
bbyrd!
This is my point! What argument? How on earth is someone supposed to step back from a conversation with you and go "I know what this guy is arguing for...or against! I will dazzle him with my brilliant argument by showing him x,y or z".
No....you're too busy asking yourself "what did he just say? What did that sentence just mean? What was that in reference to? Is he still talking about that, or has he moved onto something else? Where on earth did that come from, it doesn't seem to have anything to do with our conversation." Or...my favorite, "that simply doesn't make a lick of sense, there IS nothing I can say to that, for or against, because he may as well have just said 'elephants fly' right in the middle of a conversation about the soverignty of God"...or something equally bizare. And in among it all, you're busy trying to insert punctuation, interpret trendy internet short-hand (fine, call me old fashioned), and follow the actual flow of your speech, which tends to flow together confusingly.
So, for goodness sake, when someone struggles to figure out your nonsense, It's rather...absurd...that you then go ahead and claim that peoples confusion and your remarkable 'clarity' is due to your superior "connection" to God.
well, which one is it Naomi?
but i've been thinking on this more, or really it just came to me, that...i'm overeducated or something, ok Naomi, bc i have no social skills or whatever, and you are asking me basically to post in proper English, right, believing that you might comprehend it more easily? But IRL it doesn't work like that, ok, i'd be tossing out obsequiouses and onomatopoeias or whatever and then...well, it's worse, ok, not better, and i don't mean for me
Wait? You're too smart to use proper English? You using proper English wouldn't help us poor little plebs? The fact that you can use big words should frighten us into bowing before your obviously superior intellect and give you all the grace you need to be opaque and strange in your arguments? Having no social skills equals poor typing skills? If you're "overeducated" you cannot struggle with written communication too much, surely. Unless its self education, in which case, who's to say you are more or less 'educated' than the people you are talking to? Again, your ego is seriously taking flight.
ty, i'm aware that this still needs improvement, and that is useful stuff for me. Learning to speak the language of the hearer likely comes more naturally to you, you have been through the fire now, you have kids, right? And so you are a mom, and you had no choice imo, something like that. I ordered my early life in such a way so as to avoid all that on purpose, and now i am paying for it i guess
Ok...this. You say that you're still learning, alright, maybe this will help. You say "learning to speak the language of the hearer.." do you mean that English is not your first language? If so, perhaps you should just say so. You follow this up with "you have been through the fire now, you have kids right?" Ok...first...HOW does going through fire have
anything to do with speaking a language? Be it first, second or what have you? Second, how does a language or 'going through a fire' have anything to do with having
kids?? None of this makes sense in the context of the conversation.
Then you finish with "I ordered my early life in such a way so as to avoid all that on purpose". Are you refering to language still? Or going through fire? Or having kids? But again, how does avoiding having kids mean that you now struggle with language?
Do you see my points here? You may feel like saying the obvious is, well...saying the obvious. But sometimes you need to lay it out, then wrap it up with your point. Just moving straight to your point will often leave people confused and wondering where they are.
yes, surely a valid perspective ok. Imo this is an irrelevant topic, so i was being more dramatic to make a point, mostly, and also trying to speak more generally ok, i didn't necessarily mean for some comment i made to be taken personally. But i would examine any "Muslims need my help to find Jesus" beliefs, ok, and even extend that to "everyone" imo, lest you actually make enemies that would have been friends;
you need Jesus bad imo, Naomi, and i am here to lead you to Him ok
This right here is another astounding proof that you just don't take scripture literally. The bible tells us that God would have ALL mankind come to him. By saying "eh...not everyone needs Jesus", you're, in fact, saying that some are fine going to hell.
The Bible teaches it's one or the other. The only way to heaven is Christ. If you are not in Christ, you are on your way to hell.
So, tell me.....how should I let a man, who doesn't really respect the Bible, or much of what God or Christ says, lead me to Christ?
You have this
wonderful way of doing things, that I don't know if you are aware of...if it's deliberate or not. You throw something out there...a statement, a fact, an accusation. And when you are called on it, proved incorrect, you just shrug and say, "well I didn't mean it anyway." Or, "That wasn't my point," or "I don't really believe it anyway, I was just bringing it up".
When you put that together with the things you believe (or don't believe), and I can't quite decide if you are one of the most deceived people on this board, or one of the biggest deceivers. All I know is that I get the
most disquieted feeling in my spirit when I read the things you say.
