Has EvC changed your beliefs?

Well, I was irritated by the boasting (see "boasts" thread). No, I don't think everyone here is "such an asshole." I enjoy the personalities on this forum. Not in the least.In regard to evolution, I accept it and so don't have a lot to say about it, not being very knowledgable about its technicalities. I'm buffaloed by the subject of genetics.Edited by robinrohan, : No reason given.

You think people expressing satisfaction with their lives is "boasting"?Edited by AdminJar, : No reason given.

Not necessarily. It depends on how it's phrased (also, perhaps, how often). If the meaning that comes through seems to be, "because of this, this, and this, I'm great," then that's boasting.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Edited by AdminJar, : No reason given.

No, it's not. And it's fairly insulting of you to characterize it in that manner.Edited by AdminJar, : No reason given.

I wasn't characterizing any particular boast. I was just saying that that would constitute a boast. I don't see why you disagree with that. A boast is self-praise.Edited by AdminJar, : No reason given.

Take all that to robins other thread. It doesn't belong here.

---

sorry, jar, will take this to the other thread.Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.

I understand.Sorry for being so harsh.

How would we go about doing this Great Debate?

I'm not sure Larni. The discussions we have tend to pick up bits of the gospel here and there and I thought it would be useful to present the whole thing (as I understand it) from the faith alone position. I imagine it would involve some essay type pieces going through Romans 1-9 in stepwise fashion with the aim of presenting a reasonably detailed framework. Along the way you might seek (if necessary) clarification on points that appear to be inconsistant with the whole as it is presented.The aim is to arrive at a complete as possible representation of the gospel according to one position. The faith alone position.Initial thoughts?

I think we could do that.I will undertake to not "yes but..." untill yor draw your conclusions.I will also approach the debate from the position of a believer who is looking for answers from text he (I) beleives to be ispired by your god.Sound fair?Edited by Larni, : No reason given.

That was the kind of thing I meant, thanks.I'm off on holidays for a week from Saturday. What I'll do in the meantime is make an opening post starting at with Romans 1. The meat and potatoes of the gospel doesn't start until 1:16 but the initial verses are good for setting some background (historical and doctrinal) which will set out some central concepts which will get worked in as we go. It will make for light enough reading and writingI'll bring some reading material to France with me to recap on things as well (I love Romans but it is so chock full its easy to forget the significance of the arguments he makes) and try to get a chance to respond to whatever you say re: the first post and perhaps get in a second. Once back I can concentrate on this thread alone - I need something to focus on myself anyway as my posting of late has nose-dived into general flaming.There is no harm in "Ah buts" along the way. There may well be questions to do with the internal consistancy of the argument but if you are prepared to take on some concepts (which may be additionally backed up from elsewhere in the Bible) at face value in order to allow the picture to build up then that would be the best way to go.I'll put in a request as a PNT to see if what we are embarking on will fly.Hope we both enjoy.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Cool. I will await the PNT.We better get off this thread too.....shades of off topic...lol.