Posted on 10/13/2009 8:10:10 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
““Of course I am a geocentrist, I am a Bible believing Christian. Every Bible believing Christian is a geocentrist”Taking people out of context and failing to provide reference links because it would hamstring your slanderous statements again I see.
editor-surveyor
PWNED. ;)”
“Of course I am a geocentrist, I am a Bible believing Christian. Every Bible believing Christian is a geocentrist”
editor-surveyor
Within that statement is also an admission which requires no additional context to understand- according to e-s, if you are not a geocentrist, you are not a “Bible believing Christian”.
Please describe the “context” that would change the meaning both I and e-s wished to convey with the statement...
“Of course I am a geocentrist, I am a Bible believing Christian. Every Bible believing Christian is a geocentrist”
editor-surveyor
There is no relevant context that would change the meaning of the quote. You are just too cowardly to admit as much.
AMD, you are mentally ill, and we tire of your ignorant insane rage, and your attempts to create division and diversion.
Please, it is time for you to go away, so that normal people can have sane reasonable discussions.
e-s you are mentally ill, but I enjoy your ignorant insane rage; I could not hope for a better foil to show the intellectual bankruptcy of creationism.
Cut back on the kool-aid, wacka-doodle-doo.
Cut back on the kool-aid, wacka-doodle-doo.
And don’t be such a hater!
Keep on telling yourself that you are a ‘Christian.’
(seek help)
But according to you “Every Bible believing Christian is a geocentrist”, so of course anyone who is not a geocentrist must not be a Bible believing Christian.
Laughable.
I was referring to post 182 where I addressed about 8 of tpanthers assertions. Silverback saw fit to disregard my counter assertions and questions and skipped straight to my last question that i intended to be rhetorical. But I can certainly see how someone would think it’s not rhetorical. I was trying to address the idea that even if someone is a complete 10th amendment, small federal government, limited authority state government, pro-national defense & borders, a stanch backer of our right to be left alone to pursue . . ., anti-federal handouts, anti-fraud, term limit advocate, and a gun bearing supporter of the rights of the individual, is it possible to be seen as part of the Conservative fabric of our Constitutional Republic? In spite of the fact that I have examined the facts and come up agreeing with the scientific process’s explanation for the nature of the universe? But still to by pass the entire post and simply derisively respond to my last question,implying that my other arguments are of a lesser concern than my not seeing the ‘divine truth’ behind a version of the junkyard-tornado-airplane canard does lend itself to name calling and character assassination. This has been an enlightening thread. I fear we’ve reached some form of the: “what about X that science hasn’t explained?” “what proof do you have for your god-based creation of the universe?” “Evolution is a religion.” “You don’t hold your assertions to the same rigors of evidence.” and so on. On an up-note I did get into an interesting start of a discussion with (not completely sure of the exact name.) She asserted that her paying for your children to get educated is the very definition of socialism. I think she mistook one of my questions in an earlier post as defending the public school system even though it is the definition of socialism. You’d have to ask her directly. Anyway, I agreed with her, and then said something about how it’s curious that these ideas, like the public school system, have been around long enough that we don’t consider that they are not part of the original Constitutional cloth. I then asked if anyone had information regarding the Constitutional authority for the founding of school systems. I would think schools started out as at least a community supported endeavor before it grew to state and federal standards. So we could perhaps redirect what appears to be a dead-end into a new direction concerning the alternatives to the public school system the way it exists today. Did it start out as a way to help ensure equal opportunity and just get hijacked by the socialist/statist along the way (I’m referring specifically to the undoing of the Constitutional Republics idea of the rights of the individual and minimal role of government in our lives) Is there a way to end the system as it exists today? What would be the alternative? Free market of choices? The schools that produce the brightest students survive. Do children have a right to a certain level of education? Would the free market idea lead those with less resources to lesser schools and a less than equal opportunity? (not that they could actually get a lesser opportunity then they do the way the system is run now-no not some bleeding heart sentiment, I’m referring to the colossal waste of our resources on systems like D.C. that fail because no one is accountable. It’s the education version of the post office.) Just sounds like a more explorable line of questions.
I shudder at the thought of one who considers the Bible “laughable.”
Where did he say that? Maybe my eyes aren’t working but in looking I didn’t find it.
Except that no scientific process has ever been involved in your explanation for the nature of the universe. - In fact the nature of the universe has been completely ignored in the 'explanation' and numerous non-existant features have been proposed to plug the huge holes and contradictions that divide your explanation from the universe's visible nature.
I did say that.
The creation that the Bible declares is completely Earth Centered, thus believing the Bible requires believing in that creation.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2330544/posts?page=95
Post #91
google the phrase with quotes around it. It appears on this thread, where I quoted him, as the first hit; and the one where he said in as the second.
Hard to believe isn't it?
sorry; post #94 in response to my post.
So no scientific process was used in the formation and testing of evolution? or in exploring the nature and make-up of stars? There are no mathematics involved in Einstein’s ideas or the testable parameters of the crazy world of quantum physics?
If that’s what you mean then I’d say we have a huge disagreement about the ‘nature of the universe’ and/or ‘the scientific process.’
Could you explain:
Except that no scientific process has ever been involved in your explanation for the nature of the universe.
your beliefs are not synonymous with the Bible.
finding your contention that every Bible believing Christian is a geocentrist laughable is not to disparage the Bible, but your ludicrous interpretation of it.
I usually try to see what else was said at the same time and I didn’t see it. Thanks. I’ve been following along here but the give and take has enough givers and takers, I think.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.