|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Jesus and his sacrifice is Satan’s test of man’s morality. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13018 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
Thread copied here from the Jesus and his sacrifice is Satan’s test of man’s morality. thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13018 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 1.9
|
Greatest I am writes: BTW, that is a really stupid statement and beneath your IQ. From the Forum Guidelines:
Discussion should be focused on the substance of what is said. You demonstrate something is stupid by your evidence and arguments, in which case nothing more need be said.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13018 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
Greatest I am writes: Now you lie again by saying chosen means a consensus. That's your idea of civility? Time that you took a break. See you tomorrow.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13018 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 1.9
|
In the interest of not letting discussion bog down unnecessarily, this information comes from Google:
quote: For the sake of letting discussion proceed on the main topic, let us accept this definition in this thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13018 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
GDR writes: Can you explain to me why it is that theists are so vehemently opposed to saying that they believe that there is nothing but natural processes and that no deity exists? Maybe you meant atheists? If not then I found this confusing, and others may also.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13018 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
Hi Bob,
The Forum Guidelines try to encourage people to accompany their links with some explanation of what is contained in the link:
Also, you could have included that YouTube video directly in the message itself with this message code: [utube=SKnF1HEUwuo]. The number is the code at the end of the YouTube link. It would have come out looking like this:
Click on this message code help link for help with the message codes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13018 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 1.9
|
Some recent posts have been very declarative with no supporting argument or evidence. Examples of evidence might be quotes from the Bible or from famous religious writers or historians like Augustine or Josephus.
Ideally each post will be composed originally on the spot, but anyone who sincerely believes a point has already been covered in a previous post, and who after rereading their old post believes it fits the current context and directly addresses the issue, may link to the message and cut-n-paste quotes from it. Responses along the lines of, "I already explained that," are discouraged.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13018 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
Admin in Message 238 writes: Responses along the lines of, "I already explained that," are discouraged. Faith writes: I answered this in [Msg=58] already A mere three messages after I caution participants about replying like this, you reply like this? If you'd like to remain a participant at EvC Forum for the next month, please follow moderator requests. Please, no replies to this message.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13018 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 1.9
|
Hi Faith,
Thank you for the explanation, and I appreciate the attempt at compliance, but that brings us to something else that has been mentioned before: providing quotes of what you're replying to. If your message had quoted that portion of Aussie's message about firewood I might have understood that all of your reply applied to the gathering of firewood, but Aussie's Message 239 included a couple long paragraphs and a couple different subtopics, and so did your Message 58. One thing that might be discouraging you from quoting, and something also mentioned before, is that your style of quoting is comparatively labor intensive. If you just put a message in peek mode you can copy an entire section of nested quotes and paste it into a [qs] section with no effort. Your current approach requires that you separate all the quotes from different people into their own new [qs] sections, which is signficantly more work, and it is also confusing since your style inverts all the indentation from the original. Just so I'm clear, if there were a message from someone named Petrov that contained this:
Polly writes: The Jasper letters were written in the 18th century. Actually, if you look it up you'll find that they weren't written until the 19th century. When quoted in another message it should look like this. Notice that the indentation and quoting precisely follows the original:
Petrov writes: Polly writes: The Jasper letters were written in the 18th century. Actually, if you look it up you'll find that they weren't written until the 19th century. But when you quote it it comes out looking like this, indented completely backwards to the original, which must require much additional effort:
Polly writes: The Jasper letters were written in the 18th century.
Petrov writes: Actually, if you look it up you'll find that they weren't written until the 19th century. So if you just put a message in peek mode and copy the text, quoting should become much easier. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13018 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
Please refrain from making the discussion personal, for instance, with accusations that anyone here is evil or crazy. If you think a specific position is evil or crazy then it is only necessary to quote it and explain why.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13018 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
Faith writes: Has anybody noticed that there is no substance to this argument at all, it's only an excuse to attack a member on judgmental moralistic grounds? Could you please quote the text you're responding to so people can understand the context? I recently posted at length to you about quoting, see Message 262. If you have questions about how to quote easily and efficiently just ask.
To everyone: Please keep the debate impersonal. A little bit of indirection can go a long way, referring to statements or opinions instead of to the persons themselves. Also, except for you prophets out there, please don't go deciding for God who here will be visited by his judgment.
Request: Let's clarify the part of the discussion that's about the killing of babies. Someone please identify the specific Biblical passage. Maybe it's this one:
Joshua 6:21: And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword. In any case, please someone identify the specific passage or passages in the Bible that are under scrutiny.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13018 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
Faith writes: Your post should be framed and mounted at the head of the thread as exactly what I'm talking about. Doesn't bother you one bit to attack another human being from your own crabbed twisted jaundiced "moral" perspective, in a way that's worse than any Thought Police invasion of personal freedom up to this time that I can think of. I've said nothing that defends "killing babies," what I defend is the sovereign just God's determination of righteous judgment and you twist that into the accusation that I'm defending murder. Kinda reminds me of the propaganda they threw at the Jews once-upon-a-dreary-time. Such an egregious intrusion on another human being's freedom of thought and speech is beyond even a constitutional issue, it's exactly what civilized people would have scorned doing to anyone not so long ago. Actually as I think about it such attacks should be criminally liable. But perverted idiosyncratic self-righteousness rules now. This is oddly enough one of the signs that we are in the very last days. I probably won't be around for the mass beheadings, though I'll be sorry to miss all the excitement. Please keep your focus on the topic. If you don't want your opinions examined and commented upon you shouldn't be participating in a discussion board. Last warning.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13018 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
Faith writes: I had the idea from your earlier note on the subject that using the Peek mode should solve the problem, but all it solves is providing the quote codes for the statements already quoted; I still have to insert codes for the new post, unless I'm not understanding this rightly. It does seem like there's something about quoting that you're not getting. Using my same example from my Message 262, the text that actually appeared in the hypothetical message being replied to was this, which is what you'd see in peek mode:
[qs=Polly]The Jasper letters were written in the 18th century.[/qs] Actually, if you look it up you'll find that they weren't written until the 19th century. To quote it all you have to do is copy the above text, paste it into your message box, then put [qs] in the front and [/qs] at the back, like this:
[qs][qs=Polly]The Jasper letters were written in the 18th century.[/qs] Actually, if you look it up you'll find that they weren't written until the 19th century.[/qs] That's it. It's almost instant quoting with low risk of error. You only have to type the nine additional characters for [qs] and [/qs] (more if you decide to include the author, as in [qs=Petrov]). And it works whether you're quoting one level of quotes or 5 or 6 levels of quotes. And the appearance remains precisely identical to the original message that you're replying to, instead of having backwards indentation the way you're doing it now. Don't try to understand this by putting this message in peek mode - there's some extra codes added for presentation purposes. Edited by Admin, : Typo.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13018 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 1.9
|
Please, let's not get personal.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13018 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 1.9
|
I rule that for this discussion it is fact that millions and perhaps billions, including theologians of great insight and intellect, have believed as you do. I also rule that the argument that millions and perhaps billions have believed as you do cannot be used to support your points. Neither can unsupported assertions and links. You must present the evidence and arguments in your own words. From the Forum Guidelines:
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024