04 May 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHSo I should get ahold of Keanu Reeves? That might be a bit difficult...
To be free, one must first grasp reality. One cannot grasp reality without first coming to grips with the One who makes reality so. Patterns: they're everywhere!
EDIT: Wouldn't 360 put me back where I started?
04 May 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHOh, look, sarcasm. Too bad it's a defense mechanism, whether you admit it to yourself or not.
Astounding insight, David. I think you really nailed it this time. So-called atheists faced with an objective, systematic orthodox theological doctrine, unable to rationally refute even a single point, turn to the Christian and charge him with possession of an unbalanced ego. And full of fear, to boot! Masterful. Rest in peace for a job well done, good sir.
04 May 06
Originally posted by David CNo, David, I know when I am using sarcasm and when it's warranted. While you may use it as a defense, not everyone suffers from the same deficiencies. Some people use sarcasm simply because the situation asks for it.
Oh, look, sarcasm. Too bad it's a defense mechanism, whether you admit it to yourself or not.
04 May 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHAs usual, you are wrong, and displaying an inordinate amount of self-delusion. Wouldn't expect anything more from you, of course.
No, David, I know when I am using sarcasm and when it's warranted. While you may use it as a defense, not everyone suffers from the same deficiencies. Some people use sarcasm simply because the situation asks for it.
04 May 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHSounds like a typical FreakyArgument.
You're a fool if you think the Bible is not the word of God.
I make a statement, you fail to address the statement and simply
assert something unrelated.
If the Genesis stories were meant to be taken literally, then the two
creation stories would not have mutually exclusive contradictions
(specifically the order in which the various 'creations' appeared).
Sorry, Bud: Your slavish following of the Bible's literal text is increasingly
a minority position among Christians who recognize that the beauty of
Creation and its Creator does not hinge upon whether the universe
is less than 10000 years old, and doesn't entail the wholesale rejection
of demonstrable sciences which, through independent methodologies
which are repeatably observable by anyone, only serve to enhance a
person's appreciation of the universe in which we live.
Your subtle assertion that an evolutionist-Christian entails a
contradiction is both laughable and insulting. Get a grip, read a
science book, look through a microscope and telescope a bit, and
try prying your fingers loose from your security blanket.
Nemesio
04 May 06
Originally posted by NemesioI honestly don't get this: I'm here, Freaky is part of you guys. I leave, I come back... and he becomes Darfius? Did I miss something during my departure? When did this happen?
Sounds like a typical FreakyArgument.
I make a statement, you fail to address the statement and simply
assert something unrelated.
If the Genesis stories were meant to be taken literally, then the two
creation stories would not have mutually exclusive contradictions
(specifically the order in which the various 'creations' appeared).
Sorry, Bud: ...[text shortened]... lescope a bit, and
try prying your fingers loose from your security blanket.
Nemesio
05 May 06
Originally posted by NemesioSounds like a typical FreakyArgument.
Sounds like a typical FreakyArgument.
I make a statement, you fail to address the statement and simply
assert something unrelated.
If the Genesis stories were meant to be taken literally, then the two
creation stories would not have mutually exclusive contradictions
(specifically the order in which the various 'creations' appeared).
Sorry, Bud: ...[text shortened]... lescope a bit, and
try prying your fingers loose from your security blanket.
Nemesio
Careful. That's trademark material.
I make a statement, you fail to address the statement and simply
assert something unrelated.
Unrelated? You said that only a fool thinks evolution negates spirituality. Call me kooky, but that sounds like an axiom. I provided an axiom which, IMO, trumps yours. Sorry.
If the Genesis stories were meant to be taken literally, then the two
creation stories would not have mutually exclusive contradictions
(specifically the order in which the various 'creations' appeared).
Hang on: didn't you just say my comment had no relation to yours? Hmmm.
Nonetheless...
The account of beginnings is meant to be taken literally: literally in the original languages. "Mutually exclusive contradictions?" That must be a new term.
Christians who recognize that the beauty of Creation and its Creator does not hinge upon whether the universe is less than 10000 years old
Amen. Wait! You didn't think that I held to a young earth, did you? Now that's downright silly, given my many posts otherwise.
doesn't entail the wholesale rejection of demonstrable sciences
Dude er, sorry, Bud, I am with you there. Especially that demonstrable part.
Get a grip, read a science book, look through a microscope and telescope a bit, and try prying your fingers loose from your security blanket.
Get a grip but pry my fingers. Sounds like one of them 'mutually exclusive contradiction' thingies. I have several science books at my residence, and spend a fair amount of time immersed in astronomy. It must be that I come to different conclusions when faced with the datum that makes me such an idiot in your eyes.
I do not maintain that anyone needs to completely understand all of Scripture to secure salvation. Salvation is obtained via non-meritorious faith in the saving work of Jesus Christ on the cross. However, I do maintain that a belief which describes the Bible as anything less than the word of God is indefensible. Insulted? You'll get over it, I'm sure.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
05 May 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI really hate it when fundamentalist christians read a few books and can pass themselves off as pseudo-intellectuals. Its the main problem with society.
You're a fool if you think the Bible is not the word of God.
Could you please justify this statement?
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
05 May 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI dont understand. You either reject evolution or you don't. If you reject evolution then obviously you do hold to a "young Earth". Which one is it?
[b]Sounds like a typical FreakyArgument.
Careful. That's trademark material.
I make a statement, you fail to address the statement and simply
assert something unrelated.
Unrelated? You said that only a fool thinks evolution negates spirituality. Call me kooky, but that sounds like an axiom. I provided an axiom which, IMO, trumps yours. ...[text shortened]... ess than the word of God is indefensible. Insulted? You'll get over it, I'm sure.[/b]
05 May 06
Originally posted by Conrau KYour hatred stems from an inability to quickly assimilate the salient points of a topic enough to formulate an argument consistent with your current perspective. When you observe a fundamentalist Christian do so with seeming ease, jealousy overtakes your emotional base, and you are left with feelings of inadequacies which, in turn, cause you to react toward said fundie.
I really hate it when fundamentalist christians read a few books and can pass themselves off as pseudo-intellectuals. Its the main problem with society.
Could you please justify this statement?
Unable to refute the fundie's stance via reason, logic or simply errors found within their own faith foundations, you take your jealousy one step further and make a scapegoat out of all of them, blaming societal ills on the existence of all fundamentalists.
That's about as close as I can get to justifying your statement.