Posts: 25314
Threads: 239
Joined: August 26, 2010
Reputation:
156
RE: MERGED: The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part 1) & (Part 2)
December 21, 2014 at 4:18 pm
(December 21, 2014 at 4:15 pm)Brucer Wrote: (December 21, 2014 at 4:12 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Really? Then why are you here?
Ummm ... that was explained in the previous post?
"I have been countering the claims that have been brought to me,"
You came here to counter claims brought to you?
You'll have to explain hoe that works.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
Posts: 98
Threads: 1
Joined: December 19, 2014
Reputation:
2
RE: MERGED: The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part 1) & (Part 2)
December 21, 2014 at 4:19 pm
(December 21, 2014 at 4:17 pm)Stimbo Wrote: (December 21, 2014 at 4:14 pm)Brucer Wrote: Here:
"Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a rhetorical device where adverse information about a target is pre-emptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person is about to say."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well
Since he says that all I am doing is poisoning the well, he is attempting to pre-empt me with the intention of discrediting and ridiculing.
Except your own words were cited against you. You discredited yourself.
If that is true, then I also used his own words against him, thus discrediting him.
Same shit, different day?
Posts: 25314
Threads: 239
Joined: August 26, 2010
Reputation:
156
RE: MERGED: The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part 1) & (Part 2)
December 21, 2014 at 4:19 pm
(December 21, 2014 at 4:17 pm)Brucer Wrote: (December 21, 2014 at 4:14 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Funny. You come across just like any other theistic shithead.
Another insult?
No. He said you come across in that way, not that you are that way.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
Posts: 98
Threads: 1
Joined: December 19, 2014
Reputation:
2
RE: MERGED: The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part 1) & (Part 2)
December 21, 2014 at 4:20 pm
(This post was last modified: December 21, 2014 at 4:21 pm by Free.)
(December 21, 2014 at 4:18 pm)Stimbo Wrote: (December 21, 2014 at 4:15 pm)Brucer Wrote: Ummm ... that was explained in the previous post?
"I have been countering the claims that have been brought to me,"
You came here to counter claims brought to you?
You'll have to explain hoe that works.
Read the thread, back some 8 pages when i first entered the discussion.
(December 21, 2014 at 4:19 pm)Stimbo Wrote: (December 21, 2014 at 4:17 pm)Brucer Wrote: Another insult?
No. He said you come across in that way, not that you are that way.
Semantics. Gotta luv it!
Posts: 322
Threads: 3
Joined: November 2, 2014
Reputation:
1
RE: MERGED: The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part 1) & (Part 2)
December 21, 2014 at 4:24 pm
(December 21, 2014 at 1:07 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: So "Godhead" is a funny way of saying "Trinity" then. Why didn't you just say so?
Either way, it was defined for you.
(December 20, 2014 at 1:33 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: Beside my point. My point is that sharing attributes doesn't make you the same being.
Again, the Trinity doctrine is not a concept of the three sharing the same "being". I keep stressing that point and you keep going right back to it...which make me believe that you either lack reading comprehension skills, or you are just being disingenuous...either way, this is my last post to you regarding this topic...no where in any of our exchanges have I ever presented the Trinity doctrine the way that you present it, so you are basically attacking a position that I never argued, implied, or even hinted
(December 20, 2014 at 1:33 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: So "God" is simply a title and not a type of being like everyone else uses the word to mean.
See dictionary.com's definition of "God", nowhere does "it's just a title" appear in the definition of "God".
It is a title which represents who he is and it can sometimes be used synonymously as a name for the "Father". But either way, I am through with you on this subject.
Posts: 25314
Threads: 239
Joined: August 26, 2010
Reputation:
156
RE: MERGED: The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part 1) & (Part 2)
December 21, 2014 at 4:26 pm
(December 21, 2014 at 4:20 pm)Brucer Wrote: Semantics. Gotta luv it!
Tell me where I'm wrong. When it comes to matters pertaining to forum decorum, as a member of Staff I am obliged to consider every issue according to the letter of the Rules, not merely the spirit. Call it semantics if you like but you might be grateful to that level of scrutiny one day.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
Posts: 98
Threads: 1
Joined: December 19, 2014
Reputation:
2
RE: MERGED: The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part 1) & (Part 2)
December 21, 2014 at 4:30 pm
(December 21, 2014 at 4:26 pm)Stimbo Wrote: (December 21, 2014 at 4:20 pm)Brucer Wrote: Semantics. Gotta luv it!
Tell me where I'm wrong.
The obvious intent was to insult me. He compared me to "any other theist shithead."
That's where you are wrong.
Posts: 322
Threads: 3
Joined: November 2, 2014
Reputation:
1
RE: MERGED: The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part 1) & (Part 2)
December 21, 2014 at 4:32 pm
(December 21, 2014 at 2:04 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: (December 19, 2014 at 4:34 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: You can.
No, you can't. You see, there's a verse which asserts pi to be equal to three; a verse asserting that birds are bats; Christians regularly say that Jonah was swallowed by a whale, when in fact the Bible calls it a fish -- clearly most Christians don't trust at least one verse of the Bible.
The are plenty more: The KJV says that the world doesn't move, which not only contradicts reality, but doesn't even agree with other versions of the Bible ... and so on.
(December 19, 2014 at 6:35 pm)Minimalist Wrote: http://whyevolutionistrue.files.wordpres...=777&h=584
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/...al-thesis/
Anyway, for anyone who needs a laugh or two...here is his "dissertation" which reads more like Creatard 101.
http://file.wikileaks.org/file/kent-hovi...tation.pdf
The crooked ... it buuuurrrrnnns.
Still trying, huh Parkers?
Posts: 23918
Threads: 300
Joined: June 25, 2011
Reputation:
151
RE: MERGED: The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part 1) & (Part 2)
December 21, 2014 at 4:34 pm
(December 21, 2014 at 4:30 pm)Brucer Wrote: The obvious intent was to insult me. He compared me to "any other theist shithead."
So you're basically complaining about being painted with too broad a brush. You deny that all believers are the same flavor. Of course the flavor is in the mouth of those who consider you all to be chew toys. If that is their pre-suppository, subjective experience .. how are you going to argue with a thing like that?
Posts: 98
Threads: 1
Joined: December 19, 2014
Reputation:
2
RE: MERGED: The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part 1) & (Part 2)
December 21, 2014 at 4:37 pm
(December 21, 2014 at 4:34 pm)whateverist Wrote: (December 21, 2014 at 4:30 pm)Brucer Wrote: The obvious intent was to insult me. He compared me to "any other theist shithead."
So you're basically complaining about being painted with too broad a brush. You deny that all believers are the same flavor. Of course the flavor is in the mouth of those who consider you all to be chew toys. If that is their pre-suppository, subjective experience .. how are you going to argue with a thing like that?
You are correct. If they are pre-disposed with their views, not much anyone can do about it. They have poisoned the well long before I ever arrived on the scene.
|
