Vent your frustration here

Well, I guess I'll do the straghtforward thing and say that the person who misrepresents the message is the one who is wrong. Now that was even easier than answering a question with another question!And BTW, I think it is important to point out it is the "vivacious group of Pentecostal's" who misrepresent the message, not the filmmakers.

It's not being overlooked, it has been recognized as self serving dishonesty.Christianity is a religion. It has members. Anyone who is a member of one of the many Christian Sects is by definition a Christian.It has nothing to do with their behavior. Saying that they are not Christians based on some behavior is just a self serving cop out.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Thank God for dyslexia. I could have sworn that said "vicious group of Pentecostals".

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

nemesis_juggernaut But the bible is authored by humans so even if it is not his interpretation it is a human interpretation nonetheless. If we cannot trust ourselves to deal with the meaning of scripture ourselves then why would we forfeit the responsibility to others?The argument lies in whether humans are reliable enough to offer up any kind of understanding of the mind of God. How can we do so with no concept of the role or even existence of God?

I didn't advocate anything to anyone. I simply stated facts about the Bible relative to the discussion. Because I was responding to PD's statement which did not address the other topics.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.

No, I don't think you're an egotistical maniac. What you said in your very very very very very last post makes sense, especially the part about the batteries. It's just that I thought that sometimes when you're "gooning around", you are also being partly serious about your abilities, especially when you start using your limitless logical acuity in serious subjects, such as how Christians are treated by "the" atheist.I would never try and make anyone look or feel stupid. Most people who deserve that needn't be bothered with: they manage quite well on their own in achieving the objective.You're an intelligent guy and I usually enjoy reading your posts. It's when you make sweeping statements, lavishly decorated with logic, that I sometimes can't resist the urge to react. Think nothing of it, nobody's perfect. (And that includes both me AND you.)Thank you for taking this as a good sport, you can have your points back. I hope you're enjoying whatever it is you're doing, and that you'll be back soon.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

There's no way that two people could possibly feel the same feel the same thing, especially when one is a man, and the other woman.I am thinking about inserting my penis, while she might be thinking about inserting her tongue. How could the attraction possibly be the same.I think you just confused the attractiveness, or charisma of the person, with our ability to be attracted to that person. Two completely different things.We are talking about sexual attraction, right?

There's no way that you could possibly know that. If you don't know exactly how a lesbian feels, you can't know that she doesn't feel the same way you do. Do all men have exactly the same feelings? Do all women have exactly the same feelings? If men can have a certain range of feelings and women can have a certain range of feelings, how can you be so sure there's no overlap? Wrong.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Okay - this is my last message now. (me very tired with web and I must do real-world things, so to speak). But atleast we seem to have resolved frustrations, as that's the topic.Thanks Para', I also like reading your posts a lot.Sometimes I do use logic to try and dissect people's posts, and I admitt that it is probably because I get a bit frustrated at times too.Good luck, and keep tuning your irrefutability-matrix.

OMG.My dick gets hard when I am attracted to someone, can a female do that?Don't you get it? NO, that is what I am saying. No, there is no overlap when we are talking about sexual attraction in this case, because one originates from a female, and the other a male.
If it was exactly the same, then I would be gay.Now, there may be other qualities in a person, that have nothing to do with sexual attraction, that could overlap.Even if I had a sex change operation tomorrow, it still wouldn't be the same. Look, if you want to make a point, just make it, stop dragging me through all this BS.If we are not talking about sexual attraction, then there is nothing to talk about. It would be the same. I can be attracted to members of the same sex, but not sexually.So what?What does that have to do with being gay?

Obviously, you don't get it. I've been talking about feelings, not physiological reactions. Do you know what a lesbian's exact emotions are? If you don't, how can you know that they're different from yours?(And women do have physiological reactions too, by the way). That's why I keep asking: How can you know there's no overlap? Most people don't even have a complete understanding of their own emotions - yet you're trying to tell us that you have complete knowledge of everybody's emotions. So complete is your knowledge of the emotions of every man and woman on earth, that you can confidently claim that no woman has the same feelings toward another woman as you have toward a woman. Noooooo. Try to keep up. We're talking about your feelings toward women and lesbians' feelings toward women. If the feelings are the same, it makes them gay, not you. I've been making a fairly simple point and everybody else seems to be following okay. The only BS is coming from you.My point is: There is no fundamental difference between a gay person and you.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Indeed it was. Very true, as I doubt that the cast was coerced to say anything against their own volition. However, if you'll take a step back and review the original post, the intent is clearly conveyed.What I was essentially saying was that, while nobody put words in the mouth of the protagonists, finding people who might bring Christendom in to disrepute is no accident-- its sought out. I've seen it happen too many times to pawn it off of as sheer coincidence.

---

​

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." -Theodore Roosevelt

Modulous responds to me:

quote:

---

NJs conclusion does not follow from his premises, but his statements were relevant to the discussion at hand.

---

But they weren't. They were non sequiturs. That you treat them as legitimate only compounds the problem.The only legitimate comparative to homosexuality is heterosexuality because the point behind homosexuality is the sex of the people involved. Since sex is orthogonal to other traits such as age, species, unconsenting, etc., it is illegitimate to bring them up.Thus, they are non sequiturs.Thus, they are irrelevant.

quote:

---

Once again we enter the wonderful world of pragmatics and semantics.

---

No, we enter the wonderful world of basic English.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

I know what your point is, you know what my point is. I think it self-evident that you don't agree with me, and I you. I think they were relevant, you think they weren't and you think that orthoganility is the reason and I think that human sexuality is the issue under discussion and that includes more than just hetero and homo sexuality.I don't see anyway for the discussion to move on given its current state - perhaps you do? Over in Message 121 you define orthogonal as meaning (colloquially): "it's a way of saying that something is irrelevant". To me this looks like you are saying: Since sex is irrelevant to other traits such as age, species, unconsenting, etc... thus they are irrelevant.Which looks to be as circular as you can get. I'm sure that there is more reasoning going on, but I feel you aren't getting that reasoning across to me, so I'm just getting confused as to what you are saying. I'm not sure if this thread remains the best place for it, I'll leave that for you to decide. We were almost getting somewhere in the other thread, and it might be an idea to finish the thought there instead: Message 157Same thing: English and other languages very often have a gap between sentence meaning and speaker meaning. This is not helped by multiple uses of the same phrase. Non sequitur can mean 'out of the blue' or 'irrelevant to the discussion'. It can also mean 'conclusion is not supported by the premises'. I meant it the second way which confused you because you thought I meant the first meaning. It isn't exactly basic English (and not just because its Latin ), but it isn't something I would expect to cause any controversy once it had been cleared up being as it is a relatively trivial concept.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

No it doesn't.