Summations Only

Without bothering to look up the person who posted the above, my impression is that the list was composed by an ***** with an agenda.ABE:Oops, I see that it was you.Self censored.Edited by NoNukes, : Self censored.

I thought I would comment on a couple of the statements that look more ridiculous. I submit that more of this would happen if Jesus and Satan were provably unreal, since the description of ignorance would be justified. Again, this would seem to be something more likely to happen if Jesus were not real. Again, there is no reason to believe this would increase with Jesus being real. Total crap. This would occur either way, and I expect it would happen on a more frequent basis if Jesus were not actually real. In fact this particular item makes the entire list suspect as being mere agenda.

Why do kids who cling to a belief in Santa Claus for a bit too long get ridiculed by their peers? Is it because belief in Santa is a threat, or is it because silly actions draw ridicule?I have no idea where you get the idea that ridicule is in only in response to being threatened. Surely there are other reasons.

You are missing the point. I am not saying that belief in Jesus is silly. I believe in Jesus. The example illustrates that ridicule can be created because the object of belief is not real, which is contrary to your claim that it can not.Now if I were using your kind of hyper-literal logic, I'd have to assume that you believe in Santa Claus. And I say you are unable to read and follow an argument. I did not make any such call. Instead, I contrasted the situations from when Jesus was real and not belief to show you that your assumption that being real draws more ridicule was quite likely wrong.Edited by NoNukes, : Tone down

I see that I did not answer this question. I would suggest that scripture poses no threat for people who don't believe that Jesus is real. Scripture is threatening to Christians who ostensibly believe in Jesus yet don't feel any impetus to follow Jesus example.James 2:17 NIV"In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead."

Actually, you are not in the Faith/Belief section. You are in a science forum. That said, I don't think non sequitors belong in the Faith/Belief section either.The problem with your list continues to be that for the majority of it, you cannot link the conclusions to your premise. Also the final statement suggests that when we debate you and point out problems such as this one, that we are actually proving your point. And that's total nonsense.

Perhaps. But it seems that the last time Jesus was here that he had a lot more to say about the Jews and their religious system than he had to say about the Romans and their political system.

Let's try a short cut first. I am somewhat familiar with what dispensation believers think. Before you get into that kind of argument, perhaps you should show me that whatever dispensation system you are advocating is Bible based.No need to lead me one step at a time. I can handle simple instructions.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Seriously? Go read a book is your answer to a question you are supposed to respond to yourself?Not happening.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the question I asked you.I'm not sure getting answers out of you is worth the effort. I'm dropping out of active participation in this thread for awhile to see if anyone else can make any sense out of what you post.

I see now that I was mistaken. Your statement above was indeed meant to answer my question. And the answer is that you believe that Jesus being more than a great example with Whom God was well pleased actually means ignoring Jesus example. Like many dispensers, you have embraced a religion in which the difficult, action, parts of the New Testament apply only to Jews.Well at least you are honest about it.

I understand your point, but is what you say really accurate? Did Jesus actually say this on numerous occasions? This story is told in Luke and Matthew, but isn't that the same incident?Jesus also asked his disciples to leave their families, but I don't take that to mean that Jesus values deadbeat dads.

If you are going to preen, you ought at least be right about something.You are right when you say that you cannot square a circle using a computer. But your attempt to skewer your opponent reveals that you know just as little about the problem as he does.The 'square the circle' problem is to construct, using only a straight edge and compass, a square having the equivalent area of a given circle. Turning a square into circle or equating the two has nothing to do with the problem. The problem is intractable because addressing the problem requires multiplication by a multiple of root pi using the tools given.Using a computer fails because only the compass and straight edge are allowed. Period.You are dismissed.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

True. However the problem with such a statement as a response to a statement regarding squaring a circle on a computer is that despite being true the statement does not address the reason why you cannot solve the problem on a computer. More specifically, the poster did not make any improper statements about squares and circles being the same.But secondarily, if there was any doubt about the issue before this post of yours, it is pretty clear that you had no idea what 'squaring the circle' meant. And yet that lack did not stop your pompous lecture. Which is, of course, not the reason why you cannot square a circle on a computer or anywhere else. You can, for example, solve the analogous problem of constructing a triangle with the same area as a given square without a square and a triangle being the same.

He gave an answer in response to your asking him if he could square a circle. You brought it up. A review of your message reveals that the topic was not identity but impossibility.Your claim is that my correction to you is off topic because the topic is 'identity'. Is identity indeed the obstacle to 'squaring a circle'? No. So the issue was not relevant when you brought it up. Is it actually possible to produce a drawing or calculate the side of a square whose are is equal to a circle on a computer. Yes, and doing so does not require equating a circle and a square.What you are insisting on is the right to make irrelevant statements in defense of your point, and then to call corrections to your irrelevant statements off topic. You believe that the rules of these forums protect your irrelevant statements in such a way. No you did not need to do that. But you tried it anyway and failed.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.