(August 10, 2012 at 4:14 pm)catfish Wrote: So, keep exposing yourselves for what you are, I will continue to be honorable and not lie about what you guys say. (see, that's the difference, I don't have to lie to make you look like fools)

...and he wonders why NO one respects him, not even his fellow fundies.

(August 10, 2012 at 5:42 pm)Cinjin Wrote:

(August 10, 2012 at 4:14 pm)catfish Wrote: So, keep exposing yourselves for what you are, I will continue to be honorable and not lie about what you guys say. (see, that's the difference, I don't have to lie to make you look like fools)

...and he wonders why NO one respects him, not even his fellow fundies.

I know right? Even Godschild is like "Nah bro, fuck that shit"...
ok well not in those exact words but you get the idea.

(August 10, 2012 at 5:44 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote:

(August 10, 2012 at 5:42 pm)Cinjin Wrote: ...and he wonders why NO one respects him, not even his fellow fundies.

I know right? Even Godschild is like "Nah bro, fuck that shit"...
ok well not in those exact words but you get the idea.

Godschild has turned gangster? I'd pay to see that!

(August 10, 2012 at 5:42 pm)Cinjin Wrote: ...and he wonders why NO one respects him, not even his fellow fundies.

See that? You're lying. I don't wonder, nor care about yours or their respect...

(August 10, 2012 at 4:22 pm)catfish Wrote: Do you think that misrepresenting a poster's words is honest?

No. It's equally honest as selectively quoting any source to get the interpretation you desire.

...which, if I'm not entirely mistaken, is the point that eluded you.

(August 10, 2012 at 5:49 pm)catfish Wrote:

(August 10, 2012 at 5:42 pm)Cinjin Wrote: ...and he wonders why NO one respects him, not even his fellow fundies.

See that? You're lying. I don't wonder, nor care about yours or their respect...

Er... actually hes not.
Pretty much every other theist here finds your tantrums as hilarious as we do.
If you want evidence just look at the responses they give to your utter tripe.

(August 10, 2012 at 6:48 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(August 10, 2012 at 4:22 pm)catfish Wrote: Do you think that misrepresenting a poster's words is honest?

No. It's equally honest as selectively quoting any source to get the interpretation you desire.

...which, if I'm not entirely mistaken, is the point that eluded you.

The "source" we're talking about is over 2000 years old and one that most here don't believe anyways. The said "source" was originally written for reflection and interpretation. The said "source" also points out various discrepancies that says specifically that the "source" had scribes that lied.

So, that so-called "point" was a dishonest attack to misrepresent my words... And I never said "any source" now did I???

Really now, is the "point", one that I'm supposed to believe every word?

---

(August 10, 2012 at 8:38 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote: Er... actually hes not.
Pretty much every other theist here finds your tantrums as hilarious as we do.
If you want evidence just look at the responses they give to your utter tripe.

So, you're gonna lie too and state that I was "wondering"?

I know damn well that Christians and non don't like what I have to say.

Cry me a river wang-chung, you're a joke...

(August 10, 2012 at 8:46 pm)catfish Wrote: The "source" we're talking about is over 2000 years old and one that most here don't believe anyways.

Relevance? Even one who doesn't believe it is capable of analyzing the content.

(August 10, 2012 at 8:46 pm)catfish Wrote: The said "source" was originally written for reflection and interpretation.

Assertion and opinion. Certainly that is plausible for some of it. Other parts, not so much. (Which I'll note is also assertion and opinion, all else being equal, with as much value as yours - which is to say not much.)

(August 10, 2012 at 8:46 pm)catfish Wrote: The said "source" also points out various discrepancies that says specifically that the "source" had scribes that lied.

No argument here on that point. The only contention would be as to which portions have been altered (which, given the lack of original texts, will likely be argued long after you and I are dust).

(August 10, 2012 at 8:46 pm)catfish Wrote: So, that so-called "point" was a dishonest attack to misrepresent my words... And I never said "any source" now did I???

Not how I read the poster's intent, rather I saw it as an exercise to point out that one can selectively quote to make it appear that something said pretty much whatever you want it to.

(August 10, 2012 at 8:46 pm)catfish Wrote: Really now, is the "point", one that I'm supposed to believe every word?

See above.

As a matter of fact, no. Furthermore, I'd go so far to say that one who does believe every word has some serious critical thinking deficiencies (again, my opinion, worth every penny you paid for it).

Personally, I couldn't care less what you believe, nor do I particularly care that you cherry pick which verses you find relevant (realistically, you pretty much have to in my view). The only thing I find curious about cherry picking is the question of why this verse, and not that verse, which appears to say something quite different from the verse that you prefer. (Reference my earlier comment regarding selective quoting and interpreting a text to say whatever one wants it to.)

If you think you can defend cherry picking one particular verse over another that doesn't seem to support your position (whatever the hell that happens to be, as you've not exactly been forthcoming), knock yourself out.

Just don't be terribly surprised when someone takes the opportunity to demonstrate that they don't see it as intellectually honest if your argument isn't persuasive. Pretty much an uphill battle when you're in hostile territory (so to speak), from where I sit.

(August 10, 2012 at 8:46 pm)catfish Wrote:

(August 10, 2012 at 6:48 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: No. It's equally honest as selectively quoting any source to get the interpretation you desire.

...which, if I'm not entirely mistaken, is the point that eluded you.

The "source" we're talking about is over 2000 years old and one that most here don't believe anyways. The said "source" was originally written for reflection and interpretation. The said "source" also points out various discrepancies that says specifically that the "source" had scribes that lied.

So, that so-called "point" was a dishonest attack to misrepresent my words... And I never said "any source" now did I???

Really now, is the "point", one that I'm supposed to believe every word?

---

(August 10, 2012 at 8:38 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote: Er... actually hes not.
Pretty much every other theist here finds your tantrums as hilarious as we do.
If you want evidence just look at the responses they give to your utter tripe.

So, you're gonna lie too and state that I was "wondering"?

I know damn well that Christians and non don't like what I have to say.

Cry me a river wang-chung, you're a joke...

Oh no its not that we don't like what you have to say. On the contrary, we find it hilarious.
We just have an extremely low opinion of your intellect, you're kind of like... how can I put this in a way you will understand?
... hm... the court jester? The fool? The villiage idiot? The forum troll? The last horse to the stables? A Karl Pilkington?
None of these descriptions seem to quite do it justice but nevertheless we are very amused and quite grateful for your presence.
Please, continue. :-)

So RD, you gonna pussy out and not answer a direct question?
"So, you're gonna lie too and state that I was "wondering"?

Predictable and rather droll...