if it pertains to MY existence, MY answer should be sufficient,,,

nope...your existence is why you should have only picked one option...

you placed "both"..."Both" was not included as an option because it refers to two existences ..

there exist questions that the religious are not allow to answer or to think beyond which requires them to hide behind the option of "Faith"

imagine teaching Children this ...sure seems like abuse

I imagine that 'abuse' applies equally in the case of not allowing others to think beyond the options of 'one or the other' , black and white,,,,etc,,,

abuse would have been if you were only given "one" option ....and if you didn't pick that one option you would burn in Hell for all eternity

which is why my non threatening question was not abusive but pure as it was wholesome and family friendly

any limit placed upon someone regarding how they perceive their own existence, is equally 'abusive'

and with that you just explained why your religious belief is abusive because it forbids you to pick only one of the options ....

clear case of limiting thought

only if the presumption is made that one is abusive,, which I did not assume

I said they are equally 'abusive', meaning one is no more or less abusive than the other but not necessitating that either is abusive

For it to be abusive either one would have to be "forced" into either believing or not. The abusivness would come from being treated differently on your choice of believing nor not believing. And that there lays with the individual, not specifically the belief. Christianity for instance, believers are not treated differently then the non believers in the belief itself. Now I can't account for each individual, but again the belief in itself does not teach any form of segregation or abusiveness there in.

'abuse' is a highly overused and oversimplified term in the forums, thats why I always almost put it in quotes,,,,

My enlightenment comes not from you.

In truth.

the options given do not even come close to representing my existance (i.e. your question is invalid to the fact of my existance as I am beyond the ability of a binary logic to measure).

Knowing or believing mean nothing when reduced to its lowest common denominator.

Iam.


Peace be with you brother but you do not set the parameters by which my life is questioned. (by me)

Asking a binary question limits thought when one asks a full spectrum entity to limit its response to a flat topology.

MsHarmony...now you're double talking with an array of legal parable mumbo jumbo which suggest that you are not only a follower of Jesus and but also a follower of Perry Mason

if you are gong to agree that both are "equally abusive" then you are in fact agreeing with the thread...

Cowboy isn't that what your religion "whichever one it happens to be this week" requires you to do.....it is well known that you have a fear of being tossed into the Lake of Fire which in turn "forced" you to believe ....

imagine telling little kids such horrors and giving them only one option to choose from....believe or die

and when I presented a question with only one option you guys started having a conniption fit calling the question abusive

Funches,
Why do you argue here to just get under people's skin? You don't come to have a "discussion", you clearly just wish to irritate the one you're "discussing" with. The following two quotes are reasons I'm saying this. The original quote in this post is in response the the following two.



I wish to point out she said "Which I did not assume"

Then we have



This one I wish to point out two things.
- meaning one is no more or less abusive then the other
- but not neccessitating that either is abusive.


She never said they WERE abusive, only made a speculation of if one is abusive, the other is to.

I have absolutely no fear of being tossed anywhere.

I obey God cause I love God, not to save my own rear end. Again, I wish to repeat, I obey out of love, not fear.

Had no conniption fit, nor did I say anything was abusive. You're the one with the accusations of something being abusive. The only thing that we have really discussed on this specific thing is that "believing" and "knowing" are the exact same thing.

When taught something in school, it is taken on faith to be true unless you have witnessed it first hand. Thus the knowing of this knowledge given is BELIEVED to be true.

MsHarmony...you "always almost"? .....can we say contradiction?

you clearly been hanging around "Cowboy 2" way to much

but it is somewhat poetic how you always attempt to cover your butt in legalese

How is the a contradiction? What she said there is the same as saying "I Usually...".

AdventureBegins....I simply offered a challenge with simple rules, it was expected that those that took on the challenge would play by the rules ....but it's clear now that your belief do not permit you to do as such

Sure it does, because believing something is the exact same thing as knowing something.