I go weeks/months sometime without giving TOL a second thought. After that thread was closed I moved on to other interests for a while (astronomy). I was unaware of a continuing thread.
If you spent as much time actually discussing the topic as you do honing your insult skills when you've been bested you'd be more interesting.
*Ta ta.
OP you never responded to
I even made spelling errors that I never corrected.* They were waiting for your scrutiny.
You create a thread to further a discussion from a prior thread that was prematurely closed then blame me for not responding to the new thread of which I knew nothing about. Seriously? Couldn't you have PM'd me of the existence of this ground-breaking thread if it was so vitally important I participate?
I sincerely wanted to discuss the matter with you,
Yeah, on my review of that thread I could tell from your venomous vitriol how sincere you were
.
... but sensed a certain method about you.
Who are you now, Spiderman?
The very insults you point out are the very things you rely on in discussion.
I rely on logic and reason, you rely on insult because, from my perspective, you are unable to use either.
I am well equipped to buckle down and have a cordial debate, sling a little mud or just get plain nasty.
"Just plain nasty" is all I have read from you to everyone with whom you disagree. A "cordial" discussion seems beyond your ability. Other posters have made this observation as well.
I look at the intellectual respect that a persons post content reveals and respond accordingly.* This way, the meaningful discussions go forward, but the meaningless discussions dissolve rapidly.
What you view as a lack of "intellectual respect" (whatever that means) is probably a result of the brevity of most of my responses. I usually text from a phone so getting to the point in a few words is preferable. The discussions I've seen you involved in "dissolve rapidly" because you prefer insult to rational and meaningful counter-arguments when your initial assertions are defeated.
I am willing to press forward, but I'm not willing to press forward and place effort into a discussion with an individual that has nothing more than canned arguments and presuppositions.
My "canned arguments and presuppositions" are different from your "canned arguments and presuppositions", how, exactly?
I have ascertained that you have no respect for people that believe in God and especially those that believe God is the Loving God that Died at our cruel hands to show us that We are that important to Him.
My wife is a christian and believes in a deity similar to the one your imagination has constructed I suspect. Do you honestly believe I don't love and respect her and the beliefs she holds dear? Really?
Please explain how "god" dies. Do your best to avoid logical inconsistencies and biblical assertions in your discussion.
You seem to like the demanding God concept.* You like the work your way to Heaven, unseeable, unprovable God concept, because it fits your inability to search out the God that Loves us and walks with us.
Which biblical deity are you referencing here, the jealous, vengeful, capricious, murderous one described in the OT or the one you prefer?
You claim to be a well studied Athiest that keeps up with world events, but your arguments lack evidence and carry a lot of insult to them.
]Current events aren't the issue. Certainly the atrocities of Islam dominate the headlines, however, the history of heinous acts committed by "true christians" is well documented.
It's funny that you jump in on this thread that defines Jesus as God, and claim to understand the dynamics of what is being discussed.
As a person who was raised in a fundamentalist christian family (my dad was a minister) and have studied the bible (and other religious texts) for nearly 60 years. I submit that I am more than a little qualified.
You laugh at Theology and devalue it, thus you have no grounds to judge a discussion about it.
See above.
Evil.Eye.;5038261If you were willing to discuss the philosophical aspect in conjunction with the source text said:
When you have studied and understand the "source texts" without the ingrained bias of trinitarianism, I be more than happy to "discuss the philosophical aspect" of whatever you choose.
If you had leveled out on the Islam discussion and admitted that it is an issue that is not anything like Christianity, but Love thy Neighbor needs to be kept in mind... I would have tipped my hat your way.
A bit of study on your part of the history of christianity might be of benefit to you. Try not to brush aside the long list of atrocities committed as not the work product of "true" christians.
My point... you are big talk and no facts or genuine heart in discussion.* You seem incapable of discussing the "idea" of God.
I'm completely capable of discussion on any subject. My advantage over you is that I don't become emotionally involved when my position is challenged/defeated or feel insulted.
This is why I address you as I do of late.* It is my way of dosing you with your own medicine.
If dosages of "my own medicine" is what I will be receiving from you in the future in lieu of rational and meaningful responses might I suggest you age rapidly beyond your years or you grow thicker skin. Either will help. Failure to do so on your part will result in abandonment of the discussion on mine. Its how I roll.
