Another law thread

[Drich]

What is the point of this particular apologetic? I understand, Drich, that you started this thread to clarify a discussion from another, but what I'm asking is, "Why bring this up at all?"

As i answered the first time this was asked a page ago, This principle came up two or three different times in the last two threads I was apart of. Appearently you all do not read each others offerings (as witnessed by this question again) So I thought if three of you were having issue then perhaps i should address this seperatly. (for those of you who were not apart of the orginal discussion)

Christian appearently saw the same pattern and started his own thread a couple days before my own, and not wanting to take anything over I decided to do what I had planned to do to begin with.

[Ryantology]

In that they have been taught to think with in the structured paradyme that states "book learn'n" is the only measure of wisdom and intellegence.

Says the guy whose 'proof' for his faith exists nowhere except in a book.

[rexbeccarox]

Which brings us full circle. How can I teach from a position of humility if i am so proud as to hide myself from you in what I call "The Emporor's new cloths?" I must humble myself before God and you people to serve. Unfortunatly where I need to serve Here requires alot of humility, something I am offering to teach by example.

Eh. No thanks. Your version of "humility" is actually extreme arrogance. I'm not interested.

[Drich]

You ASSUME that one seeks Logic or that one seeks a guide as to how to live one's life. Even in your catch all statement "Neither or both" You are still supposing that the Bible or Christianity is still the means one seeks "Logically or as a guide" to live one's life.

Well it's either logic, not logic, neither or both. Otherwise you're talking too nonsensically so how can you expect to be understood?

The assuption of logic is not the error I am pointing out. It is the assumption that the bible/christianity is logically used to identify a way to live your life.

Again Biblical Christianity is not a way or list of 'logical rules' to live by.

---

No offense taken Rex. Three things to address your valid point, and it is indeed valid.
1. I never mentioned his grammar only his atrocious and constant spelling (since the day he arrived).
2. The word mute was spelled correctly even if I did use the wrong version and thus did not get flagged on a spell check.
3. Most importantly, my original post covers this particular type of mistake:


Everybody makes the occasional spelling/grammar error due to rushing a post or whatever. This guy on the other hand pretends to be some kind of theological/intellectual authority on everything that comes out of his mouth, when in reality he as an uneducated blow hard who can't even put together a legible sentence.

Oh yeah, point definitely taken

(Oh! I wonder how Drich would spell "definitely".)

how it sounds.

---

In that they have been taught to think with in the structured paradyme that states "book learn'n" is the only measure of wisdom and intellegence.

Says the guy whose 'proof' for his faith exists nowhere except in a book.

No, My proof was given to me personally by God. I use "the book" to show you the same promise I used to get the proof I needed. If you want proof simply A/S/K as Christ tells you to in Luke 11.

[Ryantology]

No, My proof was given to me personally by God. I use "the book" to show you the same promise I used to get the proof I needed. If you want proof simply A/S/K as Christ tells you to in Luke 11.

You believe your hallucinations are God speaking to you because you think your book said so.

[Edwardo Piet]

The assuption of logic is not the error I am pointing out. It is the assumption that the bible/christianity is logically used to identify a way to live your life.

There are no assumptions whatsoever... I am asking what the purpose actually is...

Is it:

1: Logical.

2. Non-logical and yet a guide to one's life.

3. Neither.

4. Both.

The questions are open and founded upon true dichotomies so nothing is being assumed at all.... (besides the fact that I assume that when you ask if anyone has any questions you actually mean what you say).

[Drich]

The assuption of logic is not the error I am pointing out. It is the assumption that the bible/christianity is logically used to identify a way to live your life.

There are no assumptions whatsoever... I am asking what the purpose actually is...

Is it:

1: Logical.

2. Non-logical and yet a guide to one's life.

3. Neither.

4. Both.

The questions are open and founded upon true dichotomies so nothing is being assumed at all.... (besides the fact that I assume that when you ask if anyone has any questions you actually mean what you say).

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

I would say the purpose of Belief (that is what you are asking correct?) Is in a sense the logical conclusion based on the evidence delivered to me by the Almighty.

[Surtr]

the logical conclusion based on the evidence delivered to me by the Almighty.

So god has apparently chosen you as a prophet to deliver irrefutable arguments to us, yet you have failed in doing so?

[Ryantology]

We can have that proof delivered to us, too. The catch is, we have to first make ourselves believe it is proof. We can't get the proof unless we're already willing to accept that it is proof. That A/S/K nonsense.

Which, of course, is ass-backwards.

[Angrboda]

Let another praise you, and not your own mouth;
A stranger, and not your own lips.

Proverbs 27:2