Near1:


Probably because most people are empathetic. Just because morality is subjective doesn't imply that morality is developed separately by each and every individual human on their own, as if they have no contact with any other human being. Subjective points may still be a result of communal agreement and practice.

Topics like altruism, the social contract, and the group interactions of both humans and animals might help you see why your questions seem, at best, uninformed. Morality does not exist in a vacuum. Indeed, it seems to require human judgement and agreement.

That's exactly what a metaphysically subjective morality would mean. .. But you don't think that morality is subjective, and your comment here is not, accurately..that "just because morality is subjective".... You, as a point of fact, insist in these comments that morality is relative..instead- which is to say, the result of communal agreement and practice.

Bishopkingsley:


I want to learn kindly summarize what the link said created the mass and gravity

I am not here to learn for you.... I have shown you the links...
The ball is in your court to do the needful...

Near1:


It was me. Last Tuesday.

I wasn't all that busy so I thought "Why not?"

Hahahah..

Bishopkingsley:



Another circle who created mass

The links below explain how mass and gravity xame about, no god magic needed.

..... Of course if you don't want to learn feel free to ignore


https://home.cern/science/physics/early-universe
https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/gravity.html

Bishopkingsley:
tr

The next question is who created gravity

Mass

Bishopkingsley:




Now the next question is what caused the dust to act

What created the sun to ignite

Gravity

Bishopkingsley:


The analogy is exactly the same thing

God created the universe you are the king

You found the earth which is the kings poem
You have two choices ask who wrote the poem which mean who created the earth

And understand some one must have created it rather than thinking it just appeared from nowhere

It didn't appear out of nowhere......

it accteted from dust very soon .....after the sun ignited

hupernikao:


How does this relates to you helping yourself before God help you.

It is on nairaland I see one who never hold a book before claiming to be a professor of it.

What has what you wrote proven that man has to help himself before God help. Or you mixed or missed the topic?

Bro, go read well please.

Ok

if you don't mind, I want to ask you some questions....
1. How old were you when you first came to believe in God?
2 Had you read the Bible before you became a believer?
3. What specifically convinced you that Bible God was real?

hupernikao:


Your quote above is man's tradition not God's word. Bible taught, that heaven only helps those who comes to him (it).. That is those who come (believe and receive) his grace not those who want to help themselves.

Man is helpless, he has no ability or capability to help himself, he is dead to life and light. The more he tried to help himself, the more he found out his incapability to help himself.


He needs help, beyond his riches, technology, advancement and exploit. He will never find satisfaction in it. Because this never solve the problem or handles man's problem that always expose his incapability and helplessness to him.

Hence,
Many who holds such view as the quote above are partying on the platform of ignorant that comes from wrong doctrines. It was never taught in the scriptures.

What this means is that your statement is not only not found in the scripture, it was never a scriptural text. Both in explanation, interpretation and teaching of the word, it failed the test.

Bible teaching is summarized as below.
HEAVEN HELPS THOSE WHO COME TO HIM (IT).

That is, a helpless man, found help in the graciousness of a gracious God.

Not sure which Bible you're reading ...

......and I sure hope you have nothing to do with teaching it.

John 6:44 "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day."

The gods are in charge in your cult......
Jesus said so.

budaatum:
What's funny, HellVictorinho, your demons following you whatever your moniker.

.....You are even more insane than I thought. Pray tell..... , can you offer proof of your accusation

budaatum:
So long as my mind is open, buda is extremely very delighted.

.....Then why does buda feel the need to spout gibberish ...... and condescendingly start accusing total strangers of being blinded and other barely coherent rubbish ?
.......Is buda suffering from Dunning Kruger..?


........Why can't buda bask in the great openness of his/her non-judging mind ..... and not inflict his/her blathering on people who did not ask for it ?

And btw, your attempts at humour are even more laughable (no, not in a funny way) than your attempts at coming across as intellectual and enlightened.... Bro, It's a bit embarrassing,.........

........ and most of your latest posts is utter gibberish, intelligible (possibly) only to you........... But I think buda is used to talking to his/herself

Oladimeji247:

No reasonable person, expect perhaps the religious, believes that Jesus, as he was portrayed in the Gospel records as being a magic man, actually existed in that state. What reason does dictate, however, is that with all the evidence considered, the Jesus portrayed in the Gospel records is an exaggerated portrayal of an actual human being.

The safest assumption is what I explained earlier. He was an ordinary man with an unorthodox religious philosophy who fell afoul of the Jewish Sanhedrin and ended up getting crucified by Pontius Pilate. As time passed on, his life morphed into legend and the Christians turned him into some kind of Superman all in the name of attracting followers.

It was quite common to attribute supernatural qualities to the great leaders in the past. Jesus, Muhammad, even the Roman Caesars were flattered by their followers with crazy claims of supernatural abilities. It's just the way it was back then. Even today we still see this rubbish with the various cults that keep crawling out of the sewers.

i agree with this fully..... That is also my belief as well.

I just wouldn't call the guy who actually existed "Jesus Christ" .
I agree that no one here (well, almost no one here) believes that Jesus Christ actually was a magic man ...... but the vast majority of Christians do .......or in other words the people who actually follow and believe in Jesus Christ believe that's what he is.......


......Being a magic man is implictly part of the definition of Jesus Christ whether us atheists like it or not.


And, is there really evidence that the guy was really called "Jesus Christ" ? That I also doubt...... There's plenty of evidence of multiple messiah types that the Jesus Christ character was clearly based on

...... but I know of no historical evidence of an actual Jesus Christ (outside of the Bible which is about as far from a trustworthy historical document as you can get, for obvious reasons) .......

Oladimeji247:

Yes, because they also speak of this same Jesus fellow. Most hard-core "Jesus never existed" proponents keep bringing up this nonsense that no one in the 1st century wrote anything that could verify the existence of this Jesus fellow.

But the letters of Paul are stand-alone early to mid 1st century historical documents that very strongly indicate the existence of Jesus Christ and all the naysayers can do is create conspiracy theories about them. I have never seen one good argument against them that isn't filled with nonsensical interpretations, conspiracy theories, or other such absurdities.

And Paul was a contemporary of this Jesus fellow. He wrote numerous letters mentioning him, yet the naysayers always come up with some laughable weak argument about them. Very unconvincing.

But there is certainly no evidence of the Jesus Christ of the Bible.


No evidence of a person who can walk on water,........ a person who turned water into wine and cured lepers with magic.......... or a person who rose from the dead.

No evidence of this Jesus Christ person


... some other dude named "Jesus" obviously doesn't count . That would just be some Jesus who got mythologized into another Jesus that doesn't exist .....
and it's this nonexistent one that all the Christians claim to have existed, but obviously never did.


Some person named "Jesus" is not the same thing as the magical and supernatural Jesus Christ of the Bible.....


The Jesus that all the Christians actually believe in and claim existed (and exists, they still think the mumu is alive in Heaven now and will come back later ) ... such a Jesus most certainly doesn't exist and there most certainly isn't any evidence of such a Jesus.

It is certainly true that Jesus never existed...... if we're referring to the Jesus that the Christians actually believe in.....

Ammishaddai:
It's simply because there is no other valid historical document that's as detailed as the bible.

......I'm still trying to find out what you mean by saying that the Bible is the most detailed historical document,..... and why anyone would need or want to know that.......


Is it about prophecies?....... Things that the Bible says about history,....... that were passed down from a time before the events happened,....... more detailed than in the scriptures of other religions?........

......If so, why would anyone need or want to know that?......... Does it have anything to do with your belief in the Christian God, or believing that the Bible is the word of God?.....

I can't think of anything you could mean by saying that Bible is the most detailed historical document,....... that would be a reason for believing in a Christian God, and believing that the Bible is the word of that God.

^^^Look at him sucking his own diick. SMH

FatherOfJesus:
You are about to have the most childish argument of your life as Dtruthspeaker doesn’t have firing brain cells to argue coherently. I admonish that your ignore, he doesn’t have the mental capabilities to debate without fallacies.

Duly noted. Thanks

Dtruthspeaker:
Truly, The God did not declare the woman lower than the man IT IS RATHER THE PERMANENT ACTION WHICH HE IMPLEMENTED OVER HER which showed us that she was lowered.

So also is the woman’s lowering and there is almost nothing (But One) that she can do to alter her lowering.

And unlike a child’s lowering, a woman’s own is Almost Permanent about 99% Percent Permanent for I have seen members of the 1% who are Truly Honoured and not as lowered as the general 99%!

This is just an illustration of the craziness and eccentricity of your beliefs that makes you look like an unhinged animal in the eyes of any normal thinking human being .

Your "belief" crosses a line. Your "belief" could be racist in nature - but alas, it is targeted to women. Same shit, different pile.

It is a claim without evidence; hurtful, hateful, degrading, disrespecting and a peek into the shallow thinking of your perverted mind. As I said earlier, you make Christianity look repulsive.


I wonder where your hollow, belittling misogyny is accepted in any advanced and enlightened society .

I rest my case.

Dtruthspeaker:
That was plain english language written up there and rather than keep silent, you wish to feign lack of comprehension when in truth, you do comprehend.

You are only shocked that suddenly you have run out of reasonable questions and you could not proceed to say that we followers of God are wrong for following God and you were further shocked that you did have anything reasonable to say!

That is the True meaning of your complaint up here!

If you truly did not comprehend, you would have asked questions not crying out "I do not understand English".

Alright, I'll put it like this:

I've purposely avoided your posts on this forum because I've observed that you're a dogmatic, unreasoning fanatic.
I only felt the need to quote you because I truly wanted to know your meaning of "lying theory" and "womb man"

Just because you believe that your writing was "plain English" does not mean it actually is.

I merely requested that you make yourself clear. Your vague sophistry is wearying and tiresome. A lot of what you post on this forum has little to no actual meaning.


You engage in deliberate obfuscation of issues, you use capital letters in a senseless manner, lacking any context, and worst of all, when asked to be more clear and articulate in your presentation, you become patronising, arrogant, condescending, hateful and insultive.

You use a lot of deepities and vague assertions that are supported by you and you alone. I dare you to mention any other Christian on this website that asserts your principles as true.


You left me stumped alright, because I have never seen a more deluded nutcase in my entire life on this website. It's ok if you think you "won". Apparently "winning" is the aim here, and not having a proper meaningful conversation to establish mutual understanding. Alright bro, you got me Lmao

I just take solace in the fact that everybody that reads these threads is not as mentally hampered as you.
They'll have their own impressions of our correspondence on this thread


The only reason any atheist bothers engaging with you here is because more competent, more capable and more intelligible apologists are no longer present on this board. Yes, you're not even up to scratch when it comes to defending your god.

It's not that you're smart. It's just that "wetin man go do?"


All you offer in debates is meaningless sophistry and constant trolling to wear down your fellow discussants



You are hands down the most brain dead Christian poster to comment on this forum since it's inception.

I've been on here longer than you may know, and truly I haven't seen any as clueless, delusional, deceitful and unintelligent as you.


Have fun with your weird beliefs and convictions. But i have to tell you the truth and that truth is you make Christianity look repulsive. Keep to your beliefs and I'll keep to mine.

Sayonara!

Dtruthspeaker:


I like the fact that you used the word "appear".

We are talking about "Proof" and Proof is Always in "Appearance" which is "that which is In View and can be viewed" it would not be Proof of it is not in view.

And thus we are talking about things "In. Appearance", "Things in view", Things Seen, Things Experienced and Things in Nature"

The Origin of man and man himself is a thing in view, a thing seen, a thing experienced and a thing in Nature.

Therefore, It is legitimate for me to lay on things in Nature for the topic is about Things in Nature, and more Specifically the thing called 'the man'!



The issue is not really about the whole contents of the Bible but about

1) Origin of man as per the Bible which itself has not been challenged!

But what was challenged is the Author or Authors or Non-Authoured or An Author Great and Beyond the man authors that we know (Another Appearance/view/Seen in Nature), for we know and see (Another Appearance/view/Seen in Nature) that animals, plants and rock do not author nor write books, so they are reasonably exempted and removed.

2) How did we Ascertain and Verify that the Bible told the Truth and we be living on it.

So these are the Core issues of this thread at present and the contents of the as a whole are not under examination now.



Just to patronize you and no more I answer these parts

No you do not question everything! For if I told you that kidnappers are operating along your route to work, you would First Act in a safe manner.

Why? Don't worry, I am not waiting for an answer.



I guarantee that you do not really and truly know the importance of knowing an author, for if you really did, you would not have said this.



I am sure you have heard the word "Caveat Emptor"! I bet you did not know the full weight of what it means, if not you would not have said this.



We all take water from persons without investigating the source of the water.

Why? Op cit my statement up here!



Can good advice and counsel come from The-evil aka D'evil? Impossible!



Flowing from the above Good Advice Always come from The Good. To think and See that when one says Good, the Word "God" is so too close to "Good," such that it feels sweet and rightful that they stay Together!

And these are the things I See and I have Seen! The blind are not capable of seeing, but I See and I have Seen!

Please bro climb down from whatever imaginary horse you are straddling and use language that is precise and what can be comprehended.


You are using theistic buzzwords and a collage of words that make no sense.

That may work in a congregation where all are eager supplicants hanging onto the ravings of a foaming-at-the-mouth preacher, but most of us just don’t buy into that con game, and prefer logical and rational words and phrases.

NnennaG6:

Wombman is clearly woman, and yes the point she made about the bible not specifying if women had souls is clearly silly. Thats like asking if a chicken has eggs or pineapples when it gives birth.

Thank you, but I will wait for Dtruthspeaker to offer the definition. There may be multiple meanings for this term, which I have never encountered.

Dtruthspeaker:
Therefore, good reason dictates that since it is not possible for the Bible to write itself, therefore it must be written by Some Other Person Who is Not Man

And here is where He, Whom we call God, comes in.

This appears to be the “god of the gaps” argument. Where a god is substituted for the legitimate answer.


The contents of the bible are just stories, which were written by unknown authors.

This is relevant because (for example) the new testament tales of jesus were written by unknown authors long after the crucifixion. There were no direct witnesses who documented the events of the days surrounding the crucifixion.

One should always question the source because although they maybe lovely tales, it is possible those tales were written by people with imaginations and nothing valid to support those tales.

And after all these we are more interested in the Good Food of the Bible than He who Cooked it!

Most atheists are skeptics, we question everything and do not take anything just because.

The source and authorship is important, in verifying the veracity of such tales.

If you went to the market and purchased meat, and the butcher would not divulge what animal it came from, would you still eat it, despite the fact it may be human flesh?

If someone gave you a glass of water, would you not make sure it came from a clean source, and was not from a well contaminated by poisons?

How do you know whether the passages you read came from the devil?

Would you blindly accept them as the word of god?

Dtruthspeaker:


Care to explain the highlighted, if you can?

Because I disagree but you allege so you Prove first while I reasonably rebut if I can!



Shall the Giver of the soul of the man not have power to give soul to the womb man?

If we are told in detail how a Camry is created is it necessary to be told in detail how a Corrolla is made, since both come from the same source?



Not lesser creatures only lesser to the man. Animals still retain the fear of the womb man!



I do, but your proponents could not defend the Lying Theory when they presented it and I asked questions which arose from it and they could not answer.

But if you think you would fare better than they did, do present your version of understanding for due examination, if you are so confident in it!



Ah, so what have you been doing since in challenging her assertion?



She is not Providing any evidence of God because she is not talking about "Providing Evidence of God" BUT "About The Cause And Occurrence Of Life on Earth as you Truly said earlier!"

So stop being FRAUDULENT And DO NOT CHEAT BY CHANGING THE ISSUE TO WHAT IS NOT IN ISSUE!

Please explain what you mean by "womb man" and "lying theory".

Here's something to think about,

We are mortal because our chromozones decay, what if within the relatively near future, we develop the flexibility to renew our chromozones ??

Imagine how theists would react to it, who needs heaven once you are immortal on earth ?

Obviously, you’d need an off switch, for once you run out of things to try to to.

Gives you one more reason to resent, we could potentially be the last mortal generations of the humanity.

Imagine technology could return your youth to you, I doubt it might reverse the consequences of aging, but it could definitely halt it. Maybe quantum autonomous nano swarms riding our blood cells, acting as a brilliant system, regulating our body, giving us increased regenerative abilities.

Imaginatively, I do hope or envision a future time where money is recognized for what it's (an imaginary construct that facilitates trading and cooperation) - AND humanity will outgrow its needing the bible/Koran/fav holy book to inform you the way to be moral. However I don’t see that taking place until mankind as an entire starts to actually take responsibility and admits that it’s alright to not have answers.

The idea of AI causally being tossed as an alternate for humankind deciding and fair resource balancing scares the shit out of me. Why? Because
A) without emotions, it might be a psychopath
B) programmed emotions (for empathy?) are only nearly as good as mankind’s emotional maturity

Okay, i'll be getting sooner than myself with all this pseudo science and what ifs

Basically the argument is like this.

I’m leaving the original argument at the bottom but I think I wrote it better here.

P1: It is written in the Torah that god revealed himself to many people.
P2: The Jewish people believe in the Torah.
P3: In order for the original Jews to believe in the Torah, it would either have to be true, or they would have to be convinced that the events of the Torah either will happen to them, are currently happening to them, or happened to their ancestors.
P4: It is unlikely/impossible to convince them that the events in the Torah will happen to them, are happening to them, or happened to their ancestors.
C1: Therefore the events in the Torah must be true.

Original:
1. Judaism differs from other religions because it claims that god had a mass revelation to many people as opposed to just revealing himself to one person. Ex. Christians have Jesus Ex. Muslims have Mohammed

Let’s assume the Torah is lying. Since this is recorded in the Torah, the Jewish people could’ve only been told 1 of 3 things: God will reveal himself to you. (Future) God is revealing himself to you now. (Present) God revealed himself to your ancestors. (Past)

It could not have been the future one because the people would notice that it never happens. It could not have been the present one because they would notice that god isn’t revealing himself to them. Lastly, it could not have been the past one because it’s a checkable lie, people could just ask their parents/would realize that their parents never told them anything about this.

Therefore, we have a contradiction and the Torah must be true.

I happen to have contention with (3) bc I think people can be convinced of virtually anything as we see with cults. What do you guys think?

Tamaratonye5:

You are shifting the burden of proof. That is a fallacy. I don’t have to prove a damn thing. I am not the one making the claim.


Please understand this: Causality is a function of our universe. It breaks down in quantum physics. It breaks down at Planck time. Nothing has to have made anything happen.


What in the world makes you think, life has a meaning? It's like asking what is the meaning of rock, and that would be a very dense question. What's the meaning of your life, GodHead85? Could it be to come onto Nairaland and make inane assertions?

You are what you do. You are asking the wrong question. The meaning of life is what you make it out to be. “What is the meaning of your life?” You ascribe meanings to rocks. You ascribe meaning to life. You also ascribe meaning to your life. You do this actively or passively but you do it just the same.


You must be very delusional. We call the universe huge. We have absolutely nothing to compare our universe with to call it "big." Big compared to what?



More narrow minded bullshit. Can you tell me what is north of the North Pole?

Our personal experiences tell us that time flows like a river, in one way. But the crazy mind-Bleep you need to grasp is that if the universe began at the big bang, then time also began at that instant too. Before the big bang, it is possible time did not exist.

You can please demonstrate the methodology you used to rule out an eternal universe?


That says nothing at all about the size of the universe and everything about our ability.


Yet here you are. You're still the one running your mouth and making all the unsubstantiated universe and god claims. I hope I wouldn't have to continue demonstrating the idiocy of your blind claims.

Ok Madam So can We agree that if Gods can not be proven or disproven, Then a Soul would be able to be proved. As it is, There’s 0 Evidence that consciousness can exist outside the Brain. Therefore I see no reason to Believe that it can not be disproven either.

Tamaratonye5:

Can you prove or even demonstrate that the universe started? Can you demonstrate it started without the help of God?

Can you? There’s pretty much No Evidence any Deity exists.

Why would you assume the big bang had a cause?

Well Something made it happen, but can either of us prove it was a god? I Believe asking the Question I asked is like asking (What’s The Meaning Of Life.)

Size I wonder if that is even a relevant issue? Physics breaks down at Planck time. Are you sure anything called “size” would matter at all?

Well, We do know The Universe is huge

13.8 billion years ago, you have no evidence at all, and you are still trying to find a cause. Why? Causality breaks down at the quantum level. Causality is relative to our existence in this universe here and now. That’s about all we can actually say.

Some scientists do say that’s How Old it is. And yes I would like to find a cause, something happened to cause it.

How do you know there was a “before” the big bang. If time is a product of our universe, how can there be a before?

There’s an After, so there could have been a Before

Christians believe their holy book because they can. Just like you believe the universe had a cause and want to set out looking for it.

True true true.

But I doubt with Everything in me a God did it.

The universe had a period of rapid expansion as far as we currently know. That does not mean it is “True.” It means the facts seem to lead us to this conclusion currently.,

Yes

You say this universe is huge? By whose standard? In a sea of universes it is but a grain of sand and it is no where near “Huge.”

It isn’t Small either as it would take Billions of Light Years to get to the other side. But in some aspects I guess you could call it Small

I will accept the idea that as far as anyone can tell, there is no good evidence supporting the idea of any god that I have heard of.

Me Either

CAPSLOCKED:
THE NAME "GOD" HAS SEVERAL USES.
1. CONMEN USE IT TO MILK GULLIBLE PEOPLE.
2. YOU CAN USE IT GAIN SPECIAL FAVOURS.
3. YOU CAN DECEIVE MANY PEOPLE BY MENTIONING THE WORD.
4. YOU CAN CONSOLE FRAGILE PEOPLE WITH THE NAME, MAKE THEM HAVE HIGH HOPES ON SOMETHING ACTUALLY WORTHLESS.

IT'S ONLY USELESS AS A PERSONALITY.

Thanks Brother. You are one of the
Few Sensible People that graced This Thread

As a matter a fact the universe started without a God’s help.

Do we absolutely know what caused the Big Bang?

Do we know for absolutely sure this is not the only universe?

We do know how old it is if we work backward to the size it would have been a certain number of billions of years ago. If we could somehow go back the whole 13.8 billion years we might have an idea what caused it to expand the way which it did. We might also find out if anything was possibly here before the Big Bang.

We can with the information we do have prove that it didn’t happen in six days suddenly everything was here, and earth would nearly be the center of the universe.

But the problem with that is earth is 4.5 billion years old and the the universe is 13.8 billion years old. The universe existed like over 9 billion years longer than our side of the universe.

Humans have existed on earth what is it, 50 million years or something?

In the beginning god created the heavens and the earth. It reads like humans were first, except there were many creatures here way before we evolved. How does anyone believe what Christians call the good book or holy book, when there’s no accuracy to anything in it? It is true that the universe had a period of rapid expansion as it would take more than 13.8 billion years to reach out like what is it, 35 billion light years in every direction? Or is it more? This universe is huge and did from what some scientists say somehow expanded faster than anything can travel within it. Expanded into where I don’t know. If fact there’s a lot I have no idea about when it comes to this universe and those answers may never come either but the answers are not in the Holy Bible, the Christian bible. That piece of junk pretty much puts us as first and that’s just not true.

In fact I have only bits and pieces of an understanding of it all, and don’t believe it will all be discovered in my lifetime. Could get froze for awhile like Larry King says he wants cryogenically frozen. I don’t understand that one bit but at least we agree there’s probably no god, and nothing after death.

Sabr1na:

Martinez39s, LordReed, Vic2Ree

Did any of you actually read this

This man said

Yet in the same (over long over-verbose article) mentions "miracles" and invisible beings and "logic" in the same post.

Literally LOL

That Guy chukwunweikeemi copied all that Gibberish from This Website:
http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/apologetics/whyibelieveingod.html

What Exactly is or is not Fair Use is debatable , But No One in their Right Mind thinks copying an Entire Book is fair use .

Dtruthspeaker:


I have already listened and I heard you loud and clear and I do understand.

Fine. Whatever you Say

Dtruthspeaker:


You spoke too soon

Address The Issue

Dtruthspeaker:


"I had to come and Explain" (Thank God He Speaks the Truth here)

1. And after, you explained, did your explanation not reflect in my response to you, clearly showing my own opinion prior to your enlightenment?

2. Then, in response, you unfairly rained insults.

3. So how am I to proceed after all these?

1. NO. It did Not Reflect ! And I hate repeating myself.
There are different kinds of Atheists. The Atheists you are complaining about are The Strong Atheists. OP, and most people here are Weak Atheists . Knowledge is the deciding factor here. Strong Atheists know there is no god. Weak Atheists do not.

Likewise there are many kinds of Theists (Xtians, Muslims), Xtianity also has many kinds based on differing doctrines (7day Adventist, Protestant, Catholic). Even Mormons are variations of Christians.
You just skipped all of this to repeat your flawed Two way street analogy

2. Like I said I Hate repeating myself, especially if I sense Pride and Arrogance in my Partners tone. The way you write is Very condescending.

3. It's up to you Are you ready to listen And Have an Honest Conversation . Or Are you going To keep making Assumptions about things you don't understand ?