(September 7, 2018 at 5:37 pm)Drich Wrote:

(September 6, 2018 at 4:07 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Even in this thread, although we haven't really finished discussing it, you haven't responded to my point about atonement.

actually I did in my last post.) at the end below the black line

You said that you had responded to my last post on that subject, but I am not finding your response anywhere. As far as I can see, my response here was the last word on the subject. Could you provide a link to where you replied and perhaps a quotation of it?

And then there's the following from 1953  (cited in the comments of your article):



I think you misread the realclimate.org article. It says, «Not only has the current spate of global warming been going on for about 35 years now, but also the term “global warming” will have its 35th anniversary next week. On 8 August 1975, Wally Broecker published his paper "Are we on the brink of a pronounced global warming?" in the journal Science. That appears to be the first use of the term “global warming” in the scientific literature (at least it’s the first of over 10,000 papers for this search term according to the ISI database of journal articles).» Note that this is claiming that Broecker's paper was the first to use the term "global warming," not that it was the first paper to predict global warming. Even if that is true, that is not of any importance to your claim that the graph and paper cited in the Wikipedia article you quoted is wrong. Additionally, you claimed "hundreds" of papers citing global cooling in that Wikipedia article, yet a close reading of that article reveals something else entirely. Very few papers extolling global cooling are cited in that article. And your claim that the Wikipedia entry supports your claim that global cooling was "scientific fact" in the 70s is simply false.

I'm going to go with appears to be the standard comment these days to gibberish...

What?

(September 11, 2018 at 11:47 am)Drich Wrote: Now I will still say science is a faith based system of belief.

You say alot of things.

Tell you what...though, howsabout we challenge each others respective "faith based systems of belief"?

Imma sit here and call your silly god a motherfucker until he gives me boils....and you can go test out the theory of gravity somewhere really high up?

Conversely, I'll look both ways before I cross the street, and you can pray to the lord for safe passage?

The only thing you've made evident in this thread...is that you don't know shit...sport.

I accept your concession that you were wrong about the mini-ice age claim. If you had addressed it in that thread, perhaps we could have moved on to addressing other issues, but you didn't. And now it is too late. As noted in my original reply in which I conceded your point about the meaning of the Latin word fetus, contrary to your claim that I have not been engaging you substantially lately, I in fact have been doing so, including in this thread. So you were wrong about the overall point I was making, regardless of the state of play regarding your contentions about science. I do not intend to address your renewed interest in debating that subject here. If you are so inclined, start another thread about it and argue your case there. As far as I could see, you didn't really demonstrate your point in that thread, but then I kind of tuned out when you started misrepresenting your own sources. I may or may not participate if you do.

I may address the rest of your claims regarding specific issues that you feel I have incorrectly concluded you were wrong about at another time, but given the repeated mishandling of your own sources in this thread, I'm not overall encouraged to do so.

(September 5, 2018 at 5:03 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Seeking atonement is in addition to not wanting this sin, so it is not "just" not wanting this sin.

I don't understand your division. Sin is a stain. if you do not want the stain you have it removed. the only way to remove the stain is through atonement. so Not wanting sin not wanting the stain having the stain removed are all the same as they all channel through atonement. how can you separate atonement though this process?

Quote: The two are separate things and you can have one without the other.  If I do not want this sin, but I do not believe that Christ dies for my sins, I'm still going to not want this sin, yet I am not going to believe.

no.. that is claiming you don't want sin.. it is like me giving you a vanilla ice cream and you want strawberry, then I say if you want straw berry then come to the table and get it your self...

You may prefer strawberry but if you want is not great enough you will not get up and get it.

The same is true here when I say want I mean the type of want a man 2 days in the desert wants water or a man on fire wants the fire put out.. I'm not speaking of a lackadaisical preference that has no power of motivation.

Lets say your going out and you are wearing your favorite shirt, but notice a 18" round stain on your shirt. can I assume you hate stains? to the point where you would change your shirt, and if you favored your shirt you would make an effort to remove said stain. Otherwise who could claim they hate a stain on a nice shirt if they did nothing to fix it, and wore it out?

Your sin is that stain, atonement is the oxyclean. again how can you hate a stain and not make any effort to do anything? here the only thing that can be done for a hated stain is to attone.

Quote: Believing requires an additional step so just wanting isn't enough.

want and belief birth action everytime. other wise one of the elements is missing.

Quote: If I want to live to be 100, I'll need to exercise and eat right.  Just wanting not to die young is not enough to actually accomplish that feat.  So, no, you're wrong here as well.

I'm wrong to one who seeks to ignore how the phrases I used are used in the culture. You are not first year english. you understand varying degrees of want. you are smart enough to know all action has a catalyst, and in this case I described the catalyst as hate of sin. You should be able to see the truth in what I said. how ever if your need to be right out weight your need for truth, then you can have the arguement, and nothing I sad changes. Real want demands action.

Here's the 2nd half.

once you are redeemed once God has granted atonement then the sin we are apart of is solely judged on whether or not you 'want' that sin or not. will you make excuse for it or will you hate the sin? that is what is judged after we become a member of the body. Actual sin no longer becomes the issue that righteousness is determined by.

Paul illustrates this in romans 7

---

Sorry did not see you 2nd response, I did not have anything else so I wrote a response which s what is above.

---

(September 11, 2018 at 12:01 pm)Khemikal Wrote:

(September 11, 2018 at 11:47 am)Drich Wrote: Now I will still say science is a faith based system of belief.

You say alot of things.

Tell you what...though, howsabout we challenge each others respective "faith based systems of belief"?

Imma sit here and call your silly god a motherfucker until he gives me boils....and you can go test out the theory of gravity somewhere really high up?

Conversely, I'll look both ways before I cross the street, and you can pray to the lord for safe passage?

The only thing you've made evident in this thread...is that you don't know shit...sport.

But again the principles of gravity and the idea that everything in the whole universe condensed down to the size of a basket ball are not an apples to apples comparison when it comes to science and you know it!