[proud_2_B_texasgal]

And as the "computer chip" comment reveals, those who ask how one determines who is anointed are treated as unenlightened uninitiated ones,..

The analogy was the indescribable hugeness of the mysteries of God, verses our finite ability to try to articulate it.

Please forgive us for having that laugh. It wasn't meant to offend you. Don't allow that offense to take hold.

I'm sure quix's frustration comes from a percieved lack of genuine interest in what we're talking about, it appears you only want to keep it going in circles, while you don't have any interest in seeking God about it. Forgive me if I'm mistaken about that.

I'm done with this conversation too .. (That and I need to get some work done.)

Peace to you, A8

[adiaireton8]

while you don't have any interest in seeking God about it. Forgive me if I'm mistaken about that.

I think you are not understanding me. My point is that this subjective notion of "seeking God about it" is precisely the *problem*, because thousands of different conclusions come out of that approach to answer theological questions. It is precisely this notion that Mormons use to justify their position, as I explained above. The fact that so many people come to so many different conclusions using this method shows that the method is utterly unreliable. Do you think that you alone, among all the other thousands of different groups who use this subjective approach, are right, and they are all wrong? That's the fallacy called special pleading.

-A8

[Running On Empty]

"It appears you only want to keep it going in circles, while you don't have any interest in seeking God about it."

This appears to be a judgment call about what is in his mind.

I understand his posts as asking legitimate questions.