Look back at the OP.... there is no mention of 'consequences'. So why change the goal posts when a response such as mine is directed to the OP?
What you meant is presumably what you wrote? Should you have meant something other than what you wrote, then the OP is disingenuous and potentially intellectually dishonest.
Do you presume to know what is in the heart of Slyhunter like you believe your imaginary friend 'god' does? Are you know claiming to be your imaginary friend 'god'?
Did you even pay attention to what I wrote? I said "what you meant is presumably what you wrote." Gee, I guess that would mean that I don't presume to KNOW what is in the heart of Slyhunter. Perhaps your pseudo-intellectual prowess has been provided to you by your Invisible Pink Panda who you have previously declared was sitting on your couch.
The worse is not believing because by the time one is dead then they learn that there is a God it will be too late. This is the reason why humans have been given all and every chances to believe and if they don't believe or believe in false gods then that is their fault not God's. If one believe and then later died turn into nothing then nothing is loss.
"what you meant" = you are presuming to know what is in the heart of Slyhunter like you believe your imaginary friend 'god' does, hence the question: Are you know claiming to be your imaginary friend 'god'? PS: do you even pay attention to what YOU wrote?
You really don't know how to read. What he wrote does not necessarily have anything to do with what is in his heart. People do tell lies... so what he wrote is what he wrote... To prove my point about you not knowing how to read, check out your choice of language: "Are you know claiming to be your imaginary friend 'god'?" PS: do you even pay attention to what YOU write?
You have massive reading compression problems don’t you? You said “what you meant”, which means you presume to know what is in his heart. What he actually said,what is really in his mind, if he is lying, etc, is completely irrelevant. I will as this again: Are you now claiming to be your imaginary friend 'god'? Here is the original quote: “What you meant” and ' Should you have meant something' is the key statements here. Now man up and answer the question: Are you now claiming to be your imaginary friend 'god', by claiming to know what is in the heart of Slyhunter? PS: when someone has to resort to spelling errors, they have ran out of material.
Taken out of context, anything anyone says can be mean whatever the one taking it out of context wants it to mean. And that is precisely what you are doing with what I stated. You are intentionally breaking my sentence apart and providing your own meaning to what I am saying. While I was not taking any of his comments out of context, but accepted them at face value. The opposite of what you are doing with what I have stated. Yes! I presumed. I presumed that he wrote what he wrote and that he meant what he wrote. Now that you are wanting to challenge me on that presumption that I have arrived at, then PROVE that I am wrong. Prove that he meant to say something else. When you prove that he meant to say something else, you have proven that he was being intellectually dishonest and disingenuous. PROVE YOUR CLAIM.
Nothing you say ever seems to mean what people think it means, does it? All you ever do is bicker about semantics.
All you and others do in and within this forum, is provide semantic data to be analyzed. So, if you don't like the semantics, then quit using semantics. ie... quit writing words.
But no "semantic data" are "analysed" here. lol This would be interesting, but of course be offtopic, like most of the equivocation and misuse of popular dictionaries the religion section gets cluttered with.
You accuse others of: yet when you are busted doing the very same thing you accuse others of, you resort to obfuscation and solipsism. Hypocrisy at its finest. But we did get an answer from you (finally). "Yes! I presumed." A presumption is nothing more than an opinion. An opinion not based on any fact, reason or logic, but an opinion on what the individual wants to believe. Hence, your opinion is irrelevant to what Slyhunter has said in this thread. Also, you are presuming that I am 'intentionally breaking” apart your sentences. Once again, an opinion not built on evidence, reason or logic. Your preconceived opinions are worthless, hence your request of proving any claim in denied.
On the contrary. 'semantic data' is "analysed" here. Semantics being "semantics [sɪˈmæntɪks] n (functioning as singular) 1. (Linguistics) the branch of linguistics that deals with the study of meaning, changes in meaning, and the principles that govern the relationship between sentences or words and their meanings 2. (Philosophy / Logic) the study of the relationships between signs and symbols and what they represent 3. (Philosophy / Logic) Logic a. the study of interpretations of a formal theory b. the study of the relationship between the structure of a theory and its subject matter c. (of a formal theory) the principles that determine the truth or falsehood of sentences within the theory, and the references of its terms semanticist n[/quote] Now if you really want to get into saying that semantic data is not discussed here... so be it... look at all the definitions of 2 and 3 above. Now do you want to reconsider?
Once again, you fail to recognize the "?" at the end of what I wrote: "So now you are wanting to play the role of God by alleging that you know the hearts of other men?" Since when does a question become a declaration? The answer was provided in the opening comment of mine when I stated "presumably". Of course, your inability to comprehend what is being stated is not your fault. The evidence is the record of your writings on this subject matter. Perhaps in your opinion they are worthless, but then again, yours is just an opinion also.
You should probably quit writing words here. You just can't seem to avoid being terribly misunderstood.
You should perhaps go back to school and learn some basic comprehension of words considering that you are suggesting that you are having difficulty with understanding those words.
[video=youtube;FnhxkRO3O_0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnhxkRO3O_0[/video] I am so missundaztood!!!
There are a lot of schools that offer remedial reading and comprehension classes. You should locate one of them in your local area.
While you are at remedial reading and comprehension classes, try a logic class also. Maybe this way, you wont be so missundaztood.
Yeppir.. you are another one that needs to enroll in remedial reading and comprehension... as for logic... who needs it... you fail with your use of it.
Oh, yes, feel free to twist and change anything posted to obstruct and obfuscate. It doesn't change the fact that no "semantic data" are being analysed here.
