Hey,
Kyu.
That you don't have to read about theology, because you have dealt with it 'ad naseum by proxy', sounds like me saying I don't have to read science journals, because I live on earth (just not in latin). You said I couldn't know science except through your journals, so I forward that you can't know theology by proxy. I am on a different continent that you, have you been proxy to me before? To assume you know everyone based on a few is dangerous, foolish, lazy and a little ignorant. That is just what I think. Thank you.
-Pip
Kyu.
Quote:Er, I am expecting the VERY SAME standards for both .. try paying attention for once in your life Pip!I think you are expecting opposing standards for each situation, that is why I said so. You accuse myself and others of being uninformed and having an invalid opinion because we do not read your precious 'science papers', that you never seem to name a publication. That makes the reading of 'accepted' science papers a catalyst for having a more valid point. That we do not have as valid a point on you on any scientific topic because we do not read 'papers'. Then you say your point is no invalidated by the failure to read theological 'papers'. It may not be invalidated by your lack of research, but you have set up a personal double standard. That it validates and informs to read science papers, but you need not read about theology, as it is more easy just too make it up.
That you don't have to read about theology, because you have dealt with it 'ad naseum by proxy', sounds like me saying I don't have to read science journals, because I live on earth (just not in latin). You said I couldn't know science except through your journals, so I forward that you can't know theology by proxy. I am on a different continent that you, have you been proxy to me before? To assume you know everyone based on a few is dangerous, foolish, lazy and a little ignorant. That is just what I think. Thank you.
-Pip
