Evolution Trumps Creationism

[Waratah]

Another stalling tactic and way to avoid questions.


You have finally acknowledged that I have called you a liar. Too bad you are not man/woman enough to admit that you have been lying.


Asserting again drich. Please point out where I am not calm or is this another lie?


You do not see how I come to this conclusion

I will come back to this one in another post because I would not want you to be distracted from answering questions. I know how much you hate avoiding questions

Before we move on, could you please answer this question which you ignored. It might help you understand.

Please show me where you did this or is this another lie?


Your best is not good enough. Here are some questions that you avoided.
Is the following what you would call ''good samaritan parable'?

29 But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”

30 In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. 31 A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. 32 So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. 34 He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. 35 The next day he took out two denarii[c] and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’

36 “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”

37 The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”

Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”


This is your scriptural reasoning for using neighbour instead friend. Please tell me exactly where it says that the robbers, priest and levite are neighbours or is this another lie?


Everyone can see the lies in the posts that you have put forth in this discussion. Me calling you out on your lies does not make me angry. Why would you think I am angry? Actually I love it when you post back to me with lies because it makes you look like a fool. This last post your tactic this time was not to lie but to plead ignorance. Either way you still look like a fool.

So we do not get sidetracked, here is the post that we are going to go step by step through. So far we are still on the neighbour/friend issue since none of your post have actually added to the discussion. If you are not going to add to the discussion of the neighbour/friend issue I will accept that you have no valid reason for using the word neighbour instead of friend when describing the friend with the loaves as as neighbour. Then we can move onto the next issues.

Why are we still on the neighbor friend issue?

Because you have failed to answer my questions honestly or avoided them altogether.

I concede the use of the term friend to describe the man I described as the neighbor.

Again you have not described one man as neighbour. You described 2 men as neighbours. This is why your statement, "I simply used the term to distinguish between the 'friend' in the house who had the bread, verses the friend/neighbor outside, and the 'friend' who the bread was for." , is wrong. This is what I call misleading. Even when you are conceding your are misleading. This is what I call being intellectually dishonest. A form of lying.

I know you have conceded this now but you suggested that you had done this previously which i believe is incorrect, hence my following question for the third time. Either your are 'misspoken' or trying to mislead people (intellectually dishonest).

I have conceded the scriptures identify him as a friend.

Please show me where you did this or is this another lie? Just in case you do not understand, this means to show me where you conceded before this quote.

The fact that a friend was in need and the friend help him made the friend a neighbor as per your own synopsis of the parable of the good sameritain.

You still have not clearly defined the 'good samaritan parable'. Could you please tell me book chapter verse what you call 'good samaritan parable'?

Did the friend show pity on his friend who wanted loaves? No he did not give the loaves out of pity. Not a neighbour.

Did the friend show mercy on his friend who wanted loaves? No he did not give the loaves through mercy. Not a neighbour.

Did the friend give the loaves straight away just as the samaritan cared for the naked beaten man as soon as he saw him? No. Not a neighbour.

Do you now see how your 'good samaritan parable' does not support your use of neighbour instead of friend?

And you are right the robbers or the two other Jews were not neighbors to the man in need so they could not be considered neighbors.

So am I to understand that your following statement is incorrect?

That said I kept using the term neighbor as it still applies. Because Christ per the parable of the good sameritain identifies anyone that your in proximity with as your neighbor.

Unlike the man who gave his friend in need the bread he was looking for. Because he did this it made him a neighbor by Christ definition, but not by yours which again is ok. For if you can not comprehend how the two parables relate then again I am more than willing to concede the point.

I have shown above where the 'good samaritan parable' does not support your use of neighbour.

So this brings us to the original question.

Why do you insist saying it was a neighbour? Now my original question is saying insist because I kept pointing out to you your use of neighbour and you just kept on using neighbour. So it was not just a case of "misspoken", you were being intellectually dishonest.

So far you have given me 2 reasons which I have shown to be false.

I say that you are angry because you simply repeat accusations that don't make sense.

Links please with actual quotations as to what does not make sense. I may have made some grammatical errors which I will clear up.

Like the neighbor friend thing we just did. Just because you do not understand something or because I misspoke doesn't mean I am trying to deceive you.

Could you please make it clear of what I do not understand and why you think I do not understand?

Could you please highlight what you have misspoken?

You just have a very limited biblical world view and a limited understanding of the bible that has you hold to literal word for word accountability to your specific understanding.

Is this what they would call a fallacy of authority?

Which again is no big deal for the Jewish leaders of Christ's day held the same view of the scriptures, and held the same contempt for anyone who spread the Gospel.

Poor me syndrome, much.

I am more than happy to continue one subject at a time flaming Poe or not.

Fuck you or not.

Above I have special sentences up there with question marks(?). They call them questions. You know the ones that you do not avoid unless "the question is an attempt to derail the topic or is just beligerantly disrespectful or blasphmous.".