The people behind a great post...

I think it's because they find it unseemly.

quote:

---

I think that's probably the disadvantage of being a pure debater. You seem to rebutt claims rather than becoming a textbook.

​

IMHO, your posts are good overall rather than specific posts, because you don't tend to ostentatiously divulge information. But I think that makes you more honest, rather than a braggart, for if you tried, I'm sure you could out-Brad some of us.

---

ROTFLMAO!!!!Oh, my laziness has never been such a benefit, to hear you speak of it.LOL!But thanks, Mike. This means a lot coming from you.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 04-21-2006 08:13 PM

quote:

---

Now, here's to hoping that you'll notice this pointer itself.

---

Thanks, many thanks, Para.You were correct in assuming that I hadn't noticed the nomination....and I still haven't opened that bottle yet.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 04-21-2006 08:18 PM

I would contend they only think they know.When he was caught Peter Sutcliffe (the Yorkshire Ripper) claimed he was told to murder all those women by God. If he wasn't just trying to set up an insanity defence then his 'knowing' about God is every bit as valid as yours.Oh, and as for your view that my position is some form of political correctness - it's unmitigated bullshit as far as I'm concerned. I did actually say why I hold the position I do.

---

Never put off until tomorrow what you can put off until the day after

And why would you think that Robino

How would one go about contending as to what another person knows? To do that I would imagine one would have to first demonstrate that knowing (in general) in contendable He claimed he knew as do I. We go back to the above.In passing: I went to a counsellor once who happened to be in the point team of a group of phsycowhatevers who met with Peter Suthcliffe after he was caught (Peter was a serial killer in England in IIRC the 80's who targetted prostitutes or those who might be mistaken as such. He killed a dozen women and almost killed a number of others)He told me about his first meeting - two days after Peter had been caught:

quote:

---

IIRC "The first thing I noticed was his eyes. When I looked into them I saw the deadest, most lifeless eyes I have ever seen. Completely blank, dulled, completely devoid of life. I hope I never see such death again"

---

The eyes are the window to the soul. If death reigns in them (as it did once mine) then Peter had a biblical issue to be hopefully resolved. His knowing whatever he knew is not the same as what I know. There is a biblical clash at least I was going to bed 30 mins ago. I'll look at this later and come back. hopefully it will look better in the morning (for my actions I mean)This message has been edited by iano, 22-Apr-2006 01:44 AM

quote:

---

The eyes are the window to the soul. If death reigns in them (as it did once mine) then Peter had a biblical issue to be hopefully resolved.

---

Yeah.all we need to do is have all of the sociopaths learn the correct way to read and apply what they read in Bible and they won't do anything bad ever again.How willfully, foolishly naive.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 04-21-2006 09:10 PM

Er...its the gospel which is the power of God unto salvation Schraf. We don't have to get the sinners to do anything. We just present it to them. And it is highly unlikely that a sinner will never do anything wrong again. One doesn't cease being a sinner on conversion worse luck.I think your reading of the gospel is not so much naive as it is very..er.. works based: "we have to do / they have to do".Edited: oops referring Schraf to the wrong OPThis message has been edited by iano, 22-Apr-2006 12:43 PM

Just as an addendum to this last post. A number of elements of the gospel tend to be under-discussed here according to my recall. The paradox of predestination/free will is one. In connection with Peter Suthcliffes another: stone dead eyes>soul>heartGod puts out a universal call on all men. But it is not a call which persists necessarily forever. God won't be taken for a fool and if a man persists in hardening his heart to Gods call then a point can be reached where it can no longer have effect. This is not to be confused with a particular level of sin as we would measure it (kill more than 6 people and your done for for example). A person could harden their hearts through being cruel to animals and a murderer still be saved.The light in ones eyes is perhaps a good measure of ones position in this respect. How does one measure it though? Not by scienfic means that is for sure, but we all have souls and when we look into anothers eyes it is into their soul our souls look. We all know how difficult it is to look another in the eye when their soul is tortured through losing a child or in Peter Suthcliffes case, when his soul is hardened and dead. Its looking into eyes of a corpse. Dead Man Walking?If one were to picture the soul as a living organism like the heart which can harden through rejecting Gods call one can envisage the process. At birth a pumping healthy red colour but with small area of hard, blackened necrotic material in its centre. As the call comes the black allows the call to be rejected allowing other areas of necrotic material to emerge causing the functioning red healthy bits to have to work harder to keep blood flowing and life alive.Teenboy scanning through mammies magazines looking at ladies in bras turns to surreptiously flicking through the girlie mags on the top shelf. Some more red turns to pale pink to grey...Then his first snippet at free from Parentally Controlled Surfing over at a friends house and a porn-lite popup beckons. A quick look over the shoulder.. the grey spot turn black. And in time spreadsThe remaining red is starting to have to pump frantically now but its colour is starting to fade as the blackness nearby leaches into it. The call still comes but so does too the call of the black.Rigid and cold and lifeless eyes. And a correspondingly still and unbeating heart. Those of Peter Suthcliffes.I don't know if a return from such a state is possible. But I do know that God will not be mocked forever. We have an opportunity in this life to turn. That is not to say however that the life of the soul extends for the same period as the life of the flesh.

Hey iano,The "Jack the Ripper" posts are off topic. Please don't continue in that direction.Stick to your original topic.Please direct any comments concerning this Admin msg to the Moderation Thread.Thank you

I googled on Sutcliffe and read a bit on him and also checked that there are a couple of books on him in the local library. At this point what I've read characterizes him as a sociopath (psychopath). I'd say he was trying to set up an insanity defense. From what I'm reading he was an accomplished liar and manipulator.lfen
edit: changed spelling error- defence to defenseThis message has been edited by lfen, 04-22-2006 09:41 AM

Has anyone else got a view on the reason why the faith alone position is by far and away the position, which results in reponses which are so often nominated for PotmDetails and data in the OP(Edited: although correct, I implied that faith alone posts resulted in many nominations )This message has been edited by iano, 22-Apr-2006 07:36 PM

You are claiming this is the case for the set of all POTM beginning December 2005 through March 2006? Have you compiled this data by month? How many posts, nominations, individuals nominating?If your correlations demonstrate your overview then what we are looking for is something they are both variables of? I'd guess we would need to break the numbers down even more. For example is it all FA posters or a subset of them? What is the set of those making the nominations? Certainly it's a small subset of the total accounts. How small a subset of the registered memebers are the POTM nominators and nominees?And what, Iano, got you interested in collecting this data? You had a hypothesis? What reasons do you have that this would be a valid statistical observation supporting a hypothesis? And what would that hypothesis be.You have studied too much the song and dance sales routines. I suspect at the end all this worth hundreds of dollars will be ours for the low low prices of 39.95 if we call right now! And then our cars will look and smell like new and get incredible gas mileage or something but first we have to sit through this canned rigamarol. You've gone to a lot of trouble to string this packaging out, yet so far it's been woefully lacking in content.I'm beginning to suspect that you are one of those guys with the English accent selling incredible can't do with out items on those infomercials that come on television late nite.You've done the tease, now it's time to drop the towel and show us what you've got. Meanwhile, I'll surf on over to another thread.CLIcKlfen

As the scientists say, 'do the math.' The majority who tend for one reason or another have a negative attitude of the Bible seem to get inspired when one of their ideological friends inspires them with what they view as a direct hit on a Biblicalist position. So pro-Biblicalist messages motivate more of our counterarts to do potms. I'm not necessarily faulting them for this, being that's how they think. As I said it's simple cause and effect. I guess I don't see it as complicated as you. But it appears that nothing really gets things as intense and lively in debate as much as things involving ID, faith and the Bible. In topics where readership is high is where you are more apt to motivate one of the relative few potm participants to do a potm and it's more apt to be relative to more faith based than other less confrontal subjects.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW

It went up into April. Up to whenever I started the thread. The reasons for excluding certain posts is given in the OP. Those not excluded for the reasons given can be added up in the OP. 95 IIRC I didn't count.Sure there is a whole raft of things that could have been measured so as to refine. But something fairly significant popped up to allow a basic question to be posed. And opinion sought. My opinion is that people don't like the gospel and are both inspired by their dislike to write well against it/ or vote for those who write against it in cases where the writing is good and in cases where it isn't particularily. But that's only my vote - which I registered. I was wondering what others would make of it. The basic data is so skewed in representing faith-aloners to the exlusion of all the other views on show here as to make it possible for people familiar with the overall situation here to have a stab at a view.Its an opinion piece Lfen. If you've got one by all means. If you haven't then thats okay too.