LOL. You haven't been keeping up with the discussion.
Christian writings were referred to as "clutter" in post #468.
Bible-believing Christians were accused of "risible sophistry" in post #486, with a delightful comparison to "fundamentalist Barbarian vandalism" tossed in for effect, apparently.
In post #306 we have the usual assault that a secure belief in Scripture is "something peddled by false prophets."
And finally we have a complete and hysterical rewriting of history and this country's founding tenets under the guise of anti-Calvinism.
Same old, same old. And this is only from a few dozen posts I've read on this thread.
He was referring to "tracts." You know, those gawdawful pamphlets, bifolds or trifolds found in laundromats and busstop benches, and which claim that God is going to condemn just about everyone, but especially atheists, Catholics and Jews, to everlasting hellfire and damnation, and how, by just renouncing all rationality and blindly accepting the pamphleteers particular point of view one can escape this fate and spend an eternity navel-gazing in the presence of the Almighty.
Bible-believing Christians were accused of "risible sophistry" in post #486, with a delightful comparison to "fundamentalist Barbarian vandalism" tossed in for effect, apparently.
No. Creationists were. The two are not synonymous.
BWAHAHAHA! And we haven't yet brought out the cushions or the comfy chair.
You're quote mining here. The word was being used to describe the inordinate manner in which they were posted when a reference or link would have sufficed.
Bible-believing Christians were accused of "risible sophistry" in post #486,
No, creationism was referred to as "risible sophistry" when given the guise of science. This description is absolutely accurate.
with a delightful comparison to "fundamentalist Barbarian vandalism" tossed in for effect, apparently"
A little over the top perhaps, but obviously an allegorical reference to assault on legitimate science and knowledge by sectarian attacks.
In post #306 we have the usual assault that a secure belief in Scripture is "something peddled by false prophets."
No, I stated that creationism is something peddled by false prophets. Creationists do not have a monopoly on Christianity, much as you would like to think so. You are the one who excludes anyone who disagrees with you from being a Christian ad hoc, thus making anyone who disagrees with you anti-Christian. "Scientific creationism" has nothing to do with a secure belief in Scripture, it is junk science, pure and simple; it is not taken seriously by scientists for the simple reason it is wrong and can be easily shown to be so. The people that are peddling it are for the most part, complete charlatans, and what's worse, good people are buying into what they're peddling. Learn a little more about the science behind it and you might actually learn evolution's place in our natural history.
And finally we have a complete and hysterical rewriting of history and this country's founding tenets under the guise of anti-Calvinism.
Funny, you still have yet to point out in which Federal document it's clarified that the U.S. was founded as a Calvinist society. This is because it's not true.
People (many of whom are Christians) are only trying to point out what they see as flaws in your arguments, and you're playing the victimhood card. You should realize that tactic won't affect many people on a conservative message board, of all places.
As the author of post #486, I really do need to point out you are quoting out of context. The original:
The absurd attempt to smuggle the risible sophistry of Creationism into the classroom, to pretend it has any of the merits of science, is to me a comparable act of fundamentalist barbarian vandalism. The sect of religion is immaterial
I thought (and continue to think) this is unambiguous: it is 'Creationism' (and not "Bible-believing Christians," a phrase I do not use) which I characterise as 'risible sophistry,' and it is religious fundamentalism, in whatever religion it arises, which I claim bears responsibility for a number of acts of 'barbarian vandalism' (the example in the posting was the Taliban's destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan). The word 'barbarian' was misspelled in my original, a correction you have applied, with my thanks.
I do not say you have willfully misrepresented me; I do feel you have misunderstood what I wrote
Cordially