|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Tension of Faith | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: But that is not what Phat said. Had you managed to provide good honest answers to our arguments - or managed a good pretence - Phat would not have been convinced. Had you even been more Christian things might have been different.
quote: If your Christian teachers have the answers then why did you not use them ?
quote: And let us note that you refuse - as usual - to admit to your own bad behaviour. How is that going to go down at the Last Judgement. Confronted with your sins are you going to rant and rave and deny them ?
quote: It seems to me that Phat’s theology is less man-centered than yours. Honesty and truth aren’t men. The physical evidence is not a man. Your Christian teachers are men.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
And you still can’t admit that the evidence is so thoroughly against you that making up ignorant excuses won’t work. Nor will jumping to the wrong conclusion. Nor will calling people stupid or claiming that they don’t understand when they disagree with you. Nor will insisting that your theology must take precedence - when you can’t or won’t argue for that theology in any rational way.
Creationists - many of them better informed than you - have had plenty of time to deal with the order in the fossil record. They haven’t. And that’s just one of many items of evidence you’d need to answer before you can win. So how can you imagine that you can win just be refining your current arguments ? Even if your pride won’t let you admit how awful your arguments are surely the fact that there are very serious problems that have gone unanswered for 200 years should give you pause.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Refusing to accept the evidence and railing against it hardly helps. Especially when you are reduced to calling observed facts hallucinations without explaining how that is even possible.
quote: Because two hundred years of utter failure isn’t enough ? There is no reasonable hopes that the real evidence will come together and support the Flood. The very idea is a ridiculous fantasy.
quote: Sure, blame the gross facts for failing to do their job.
quote: And the usual false accusations. From one of the least honest - and most hidebound - person on the board, no less.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Great evidence against the Flood. You might as well go around shouting the Flood’s a stupid lie!
quote: Well that’s contradictory for a start - since most strata are marine in origin anyway, why wouldn’t they be flat? You don’t get strata laid down on mountains for obvious reasons. Then there are all the other features of the strata that contradict an origin in the Flood, such as evaporite deposits. You can’t honestly claim ignorance of these.
quote: I’m not sure how the first point is meant to help you at all. The second is easily answered. Plenty of things can provide those conditions - anoxic lakes are great. Sandstorms can do it too - and have done it. Are you really telling me that you need a global flood to have sandstorms ?
quote: The order of the fossil record is a fact. Facts do not require rethinking because you reject their implications. Moreover, your facts - in so far as they are facts - do nothing to even encourage us to reject those implications, let alone the fact. That the Flood could produce conditions conducive to fossilisation is not evidence - the more so since there are fossils that were not produced by any sort of flood. And we have already discussed much evidence that the strata were not produced by the Flood - which you have yet to deal with. So, this answer only shows more facts that you should admit to, but do not,
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Faith’s God loves lies and slander, hates the very idea of people understanding the Bible and doesn’t want her to acknowledge her sins, let alone repent.
Does that sound like Satan to you ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
As for the critics of the Jesus Seminar I had to look up information in context and see what all of the fuss was about from both sides.
You don’t report looking at any side but the critics.
Wikipedia is probably more even-handed and explains the criteria used for judging sayings attributed to Jesus, which would be those relevant to the point Percy was making.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: And yet if your sins -or even your intellectual failings - are mentioned you get angry and even look forward to seeing people sent to Hell.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Just like only you, yourself, can know if you intended to kill ?
It is not a strange idea that the law can make determinations about your mental state, or take those determinations into account in sentencing. It is a common principle called mens rea - and it can even be applied to liability in civil cases.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
I think you are the one who needs context. You’re not replying directly to Stile. You are replying to Tangle, who introduced the idea of hate as an aggravating factoring sentencing.
Message 1503
Just as a point of information, English law can decide whether you hate or not
quote: quote: When it comes to judging hate as a motive for a criminal act - and sentencing more severley if it is judged to be so - the relationship is pretty obvious.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Stile’s point was that bigots are often unaware of their bigotry. And yes, Faith is a good example. Tangle added the point that it is often possible to identify hate in others - to a standard that the courts will accept. I added the point that it is not restricted to hate and that in fact judging states of mind - despite it being internal - is a regular part of the court system. These are all obviously relevant.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024