Posted on 09/20/2013 4:29:03 AM PDT by spirited irish
We already see.
You might. I’m willing to let them show me be for I start passing judgement.
Perhaps you might consider taking a writing class before that.
I don't think being able to nit-pick their grammar is going to going to add anything useful to the process.
Well, someone as irrational as you are when it comes to history and science might consider it a plus to be able to express such irrational belief systems. Oh well, your loss.
Just add me to the your list of all the “irrational” people who’d question why you ask complicated, convoluted questions instead of simple, direct ones.
you ask complicated, convoluted questions instead of simple, direct ones.
***Here’s the question. If anyone else thinks it’s complicated and convoluted, please... by all means... ping me.
simple historical question.
Do you accept that Jesus was put to death for blasphemy, claiming equality with God? Even his enemies acknowledge the claim.
Make sure you don’t tell them what the simple direct question would be.
Not only are you irrational and anticonservative, you’re a bit loopy as well.
If not liking the idea of having people make decisions given only half the information is “loopy”, I’ll take that.
How’sabout I give you the last word in this exchange? That is, unless you’re actually going to answer the question.
Where have I “attacked” heresy? Which heresy?
Why have you refused to address the issues surrounding heresy I raised in post #35, this thread?
By “attack” do you mean any criticism of which you do not approve?
Why do you refuse to give a straight answer to a simple question?
How marvelous that the encoding applies in a higher dimensional message.
Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard. - Psalms 19:1-3
Why do you refuse to give a straight answer to a simple question?
***because simple, honest, straight answers give up too much strategic position in this form of argumentium ad absurdum, or whatever it is.
If it isn't being attacked I can't be defending it, and there wasn't any reason to ask about defending it in the first place.
I didn't see any "issues" raised in #35. You simply didn't like the meaning I attributed to "heresy", but did not offer any argument or evidence that the one I'd used is different that the one being attributed to it by the author of the article.
All just happenstance -- right? '-)
~~~~~~~~~
If DNA encoding is difficult for some folks to "explain away", this should really make their lives "interesting".
~~~~~~~~~~
(P.S. Note studious non-use of the parlous term, "random"...) <chuckle...>
“Multidimensional” — or — “multiplexed”?
Of course . . . one “dead somebody” being the Thomas Paine of 1776 – or even the Thomas Paine of 1791 and The Rights of Man.
“But where says some is the king of America? I'll tell you Friend, he reigns above, and doth not make havoc of mankind like the Royal of Britain. Yet that we may not appear to be defective even in earthly honors, let a day be solemnly set apart for proclaiming the charter; let it be brought forth placed on the divine law, the word of God; let a crown be placed thereon, by which the world may know, that so far as we approve of monarchy, that in America the law is king. For as in absolute governments the king is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other."
. . . . . Thomas Paine, Thoughts of the present state of American Affairs, Common Sense, 1776
I asked for clarification. Through the fog of your Alpha Male pretentiousness, you clarified. Which word didn’t you understand?
Among other words you don’t seem to understand (or do you?):
It’s been my experience that the arguments of 0bamatrons do not rise above the pyramid’s 4th level (contradiction), and generally sputters and stalls out at attempts to rise above the second (Ad Hominem) level.
Yes or no?
The simple matter is this whole “struggle” is all about seizing the control of power and wealth: power over Conservatives and the confiscation of Conservative wealth (Liberals will surrender their very souls with barely a whimper - if even so much as that).
Yes or no?
Put simply, a fight over money and control of our backsides.
Yes or no?
Liberals have taken over Science and use it to demonstrate their “superiority” over Conservatives.
Yes or no?
Liberals do not believe anything of value exists beyond backsides.
Yes or no?
It is not the Judeo-Christian Tradition that mistakenly thinks Science is an ethical and moral system designed to guide us in the value judgments with which we must deal.
Yes or no?
The truth is both Liberals and Scientists know better, but dare not admit it.
Yes or no?
“In fact, Paine was rewarded rather handsomely for his service by the US Congress”
In fact, Paine died in poverty, unforgiven for his betrayal of the American People.
“Only six mourners came to his funeral...”
Included among those six, neither you, I, nor Thomas Jefferson?
I didn’t make accusations, I simply asked questions:
By “attack” do you mean any criticism of which you do not approve?
Why do you refuse to give a straight answer to a simple question?
“I didn't see any “issues” raised in #35. You simply didn't like the meaning I attributed to “heresy”, but did not offer any argument or evidence that the one I'd used is different that the one being attributed to it by the author of the article.”
No issues? Really?!
Since you do not specify, is “doctrine” strictly confined to being purely a Christian application? There’s no Jewish heresy? Moslem heresy? Buddhist heresy? Hindu? Shinto? Sikh? Taoist? Gozerian? Atheist? Socialist? Darwinian? Scientism? Eugenicism? No issues?
Did I not also ask you if you wished only to consider Christian heresy? And, if so, did I not also ask you which denomination? Catholic? Lutheran? Calvinist? Orthodox (by whatever qualifier; Eastern, Greek, Byzantium, etc) LDS? Protestant? No issues?
And, likewise, in pursuing your point, did I not ask you what was your intention in examining such a confined segment of an obviously large context? In introducing her topic, even Linda Kimball seemed to be searching for a wider context. No Issues?
And have not betty boop, BroJoeK, spirited irish, Alamo-Girl, MHGinTN, TXnMA, hosepipe, and perhaps others, all pursued a wider context in exploring Linda’s topic? No issues?
Indeed, apparently you do wish only to discuss heresy within the narrow confines of Christianity (not even considering the greater accurateness of acknowledging the wider context of Judeo-Christian Tradition in pursuit of the narrow propagandist talking points to which you obviously wish to confine yourself), and to restrict yourself further to the Euro-centric margins of Thirteenth Century RC doctrine.
No issues?
Indeed, Kevmo. Thanks for the comeback.
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.