(June 30, 2015 at 4:21 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Just admit you messed up.. sheesh

SAYS FUCKING WHO -_-

(June 29, 2015 at 9:50 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(June 29, 2015 at 9:31 pm)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote: ...that you're derailing.

Oh please, here you go again.

Determining whether or not the bible states that "slaves" can be beaten falls withing the topic of this thread. Not to mention slavery was brought up on page 4, long before I was part of this thread.

You calling out other for things they've said in other threads is not derailing how? Personally I think it should be treated the same as starting a new thread to call someone out.

(June 30, 2015 at 4:26 pm)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote: You calling out other for things they've said in other threads is not derailing how?

it's not derailing because it's relevant to the conversation, and nothing shuts somebody up quicker than their own words being used against them.
If in one thread your criticizing priests sexually abusing underage boys, and yet in another thread your defending a guy doing the exact same thing because he's gay, you better believe I'm going to point out the hypocrisy.

(June 30, 2015 at 4:26 pm)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote: Personally I think it should be treated the same as starting a new thread to call someone out.

Why? So no one is held accountable when they contradict themselves?

(June 30, 2015 at 4:21 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Just admit you messed up.. sheesh

Nope Buggy, the ten quote mined posts of different members are not in any way relevant to the conversation.

(June 30, 2015 at 2:18 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(June 29, 2015 at 7:58 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Your eisegesis is required by your presuppositions.

Under what basis are you accusing Cato of having presuppositions?

Just so you know, Randy, that question isn't going away. I'm going to ask it every time you toss out this lazy, self reinforcing delusional apologetic, until I get an- no doubt completely self serving and underwhelming- answer. If you keep avoiding it you're only going to look like you have something to hide; maybe it's the fact that you have no basis at all for making that accusation, and you're just doing it as a crass defense mechanism to ad hom your opposition into silence without ever offering a real argument?

I'm not actually sure what this really scary question that you're going to repeat again and again is.

If it's the question that I posted in bold, then my answer is:

Cato's presuppositions are that God does not exist. Consequently, anything that he can twist to his own purposes will be used twisted and used against Christians.

If that is not the really scary question that you're going to repeat again and again, then you'll have to repeat it one more time so that I can address it.

That's only a half assed tu quoque, Randy. You yourself are guilty of presupposing that god does exists. And unless Cato is a strong atheist, your accusation is invalid.

(June 30, 2015 at 3:44 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(June 30, 2015 at 2:55 pm)Cato Wrote: No presuppositions required; it's plain as day straight from your good book. Your God character is an immoral cunt and you are despicable for trying to excuse it.

"Presupposition" is just Randy's escape hatch whenever he can't answer an argument, but still wants to feel like he's won. But he has no justifiable reason for bringing it up beyond that. It's just a tool for the ego, in this case.

Either that, or Randy's been at work all day and just got home to answer.

What? you guys don't have jobs?

(June 30, 2015 at 5:05 pm)Neimenovic Wrote: Nope Buggy, the ten quote mined posts of different members are not in any way relevant to the conversation.

That was in response to being called dishonest. Since the person obviously didn't know what constitutes dishonesty, I provided examples.

(June 30, 2015 at 5:09 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: I'm not actually sure what this really scary question that you're going to repeat again and again is.

If it's the question that I posted in bold, then my answer is:

Cato's presuppositions are that God does not exist. Consequently, anything that he can twist to his own purposes will be used twisted and used against Christians.

If that is not the really scary question that you're going to repeat again and again, then you'll have to repeat it one more time so that I can address it.

Well, you got the question right, but you also answered a completely different question.

I didn't ask you what Cato's presupposition is, I asked you what your basis was for coming to the conclusion that he has that presupposition. What information led you to thinking that he has this presupposition?