Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: MHGinTN

I don’t understand you question the way you frame it?

I will always defend my faith if you want to label it an apologist I have no control over your interpretation.

I defend not because of tradition or loyalty, I defend because I received a witness from the Lord!


321 posted on 05/10/2007 1:44:19 PM PDT by restornu (Elevate Your Thoughts!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 320 | View Replies ]


To: restornu

And that ‘witness from the Lord’ leads you to ridicule and dissemble with fellow Freepers? Oooo kay


322 posted on 05/10/2007 1:46:01 PM PDT by MHGinTN (You've had life support. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 321 | View Replies ]

To: restornu
"I defend because I received a witness from the Lord!"

But when you make claims to others who have not experienced that same "witness," you cannot hope to be taken seriously unless you give them some supporting evidence that they can access and review for themselves.

Anybody can claim "special knowledge."

For example, another might claim "special knowledge" that the Tanners are truthful and correct about Mormonism, by citing a "witness from the Lord," just as you have done.

How could anybody evaluate such competing claims, neither of which can be examined?

325 posted on 05/10/2007 2:12:39 PM PDT by Bonaparte
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 321 | View Replies ]

To: restornu
"I defend because I received a witness from the Lord!"

But when you make claims to others who have not experienced that same "witness," you cannot hope to be taken seriously unless you give them some supporting evidence that they can access and review for themselves.

Anybody can claim "special knowledge."

For example, another might claim "special knowledge" that the Tanners are truthful and correct about Mormonism, by citing a "witness from the Lord," just as you have done.

How could anybody evaluate such competing claims, neither of which can be examined?

326 posted on 05/10/2007 2:12:40 PM PDT by Bonaparte
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 321 | View Replies ]

To: restornu
Let me put it this way, restornu --

If you went to court to contest a traffic ticket, would you expect the judge to dismiss the ticket merely because you said you received "witness from the Lord" that you did not go through that red light?

He would require evidence that he could examine, wouldn't he?

For example, if your evidence consisted of a written city traffic engineer's affadavit that the traffic light in question was inoperable at the time the citation was issued, the judge could examine that and dismiss the ticket.

Or if you submitted into evidence another ticket you had received with the same time stamp on it, showing you were over-parked at a meter on the other side of town, the judge could examine that and dismiss your red light ticket.

But simply telling the judge that you had "witness from the Lord" that you didn't go through that red light??

331 posted on 05/10/2007 2:31:59 PM PDT by Bonaparte
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 321 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson