Now don't go trying to be nice to me, I might have to return the favor.
>>I like that. "Um", as if pointing out something obvious to anyone
It was obvious, nad I am glad you liked it.
>>But no worry, FARMS & co. will produce any amount of special pleading…
Hey, you posted a link to your own BLOG and I took it, get real.
>>totally different from what we know was there.
So, how do you know what was there, were you there when Joseph dug up the plates, perhaps you witnessed the First vision and are just now coming forward, Wow you are older than you sound. You have conjecture stated here as fact like you continued statements as to what I think, what I feel or don’t feel this is pathetic, if this is the best you can do, get some help, get Color Country over here to help you at least he was logical, and polite.
>>If you believe your religion cannot be proven wrong by anything at all, there are some
>>things that follow necessarily from that.
And those are… Apparently free passes! (Can I go see MI3 again?)
“Incomplete sentences show incomplete thinking” – Sherlock Holmes I believe.
>>You don't get a free pass out of people pointing it out by being inconsistent.
Please list links to my “Inconsistencies” in this thread, thank you.
>>What did Paul tell the Corinthians?
First or Second book? Chapter?
Oh come on, It’s not that hard to source the Bible!
I am apparently supposed to be psychic enough to read from your mind. A link would be nice, a fully qualified quote necessary lest I assume and we don’t want to go there do we?
>>Then you don't really believe in Jesus, either.
“Now there you go again … R. Reagan 1980” -- From an earlier post of Quester’s
I believe in Christ. (http://www.lds.org/churchmusic/detailmusicPlayer/index.html?searchlanguage=1&searchcollection=1&searchseqstart=134&searchsubseqstart=%20&searchseqend=134&searchsubseqend=ZZZ ) See it’s not hard to source, try it, you‘ll like it!
>>No, it simply means you don't know something you should have known. If you had
>>refrained from lecturing us about something when a little searching on the internet
>>showed you didn't know what you were talking about, nobody would have accused
>>you of being an ignoramus. But you tried luring people from the truth of God by
>>falsehoods. Ignoramus is the nicest thing to call you under the circumstances.
“I don’t know things I’m supposed to know, but I know things I’m not supposed to know” -- John Doe TV show
Hey, I have no idea what it is you think I was supposed to know BECAUSE you have done nothing but call me names and blather about superiority of intellect (which is the only thing funny about your posts)
>> when a little searching on the internet
Links please…
>> you tried luring people from the truth of God
I have never lured, taught those willing to learn? Yes, Lured, no luring implies an evil intent. (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=lure ) As when I was introduced to my father in law, “I assure you my intentions are entirely honorable.”
>> Ignoramus is the nicest thing to call you under the circumstances.
My my you have a small vocabulary, how about mistaken, unfortunate, lost, misled, gullible, innocent dupe, or even wrong. I’ve got more, and I’ve got a thesaurus, don’t make me open it! /Humor
Reading your posts I can only picture a stern octogenarian with a dour expression of disapproval. My mental image would make a real good Quaker poster child, if this is not you, you might want to change your posting style.
nad while apparently in Word's dictionary should be and...
Now don't go trying to be nice to me, I might have to return the favor.
Which is why every Smithsonian scholar knows to check the BoM before heading out to Central America.
No, wait. Actually it's complete nonsense.
>>But no worry, FARMS & co. will produce any amount of special pleading…
Hey, you posted a link to your own BLOG and I took it, get real.
Back up. You asked if I'd heard of chiasms before reading your post (again putting yourself in the role of instructor). Not only had I, I'd pointed out a chiasm I'd come across (although I'm sure it's been noticed by others). (Plus I hadn't even bothered to read your post that mentioned chiasm.)
But no, my blog isn't a reliable source for what I said? Or were you not thinking again, and just threw out "your own BLOG" without considering context? Or perhaps you were hoping nobody else would remember?
Please list links to my “Inconsistencies” in this thread, thank you.
Again, context. Pulling a sentance out of context, and then changing the form of a word to plural (while putting quotes around it, no less), and then demanding I show inconsistencies, plural, when I said inconsistency, singular, and already explained it, is slippery and less than fully honest.
It seems you've given up anything close to real discussion and are trying to score some kind of win for your ego.
>>What did Paul tell the Corinthians?
First or Second book? Chapter? Oh come on, It’s not that hard to source the Bible! I am apparently supposed to be psychic enough to read from your mind. A link would be nice, a fully qualified quote necessary lest I assume and we don’t want to go there do we?
Here there are two possibilities. Either you're again grasping for anything at all to leverage points so you can salvage your pride. Or you really don't know, which would pretty much say it all, wouldn't it?
>>Then you don't really believe in Jesus, either.
“Now there you go again … R. Reagan 1980” -- From an earlier post of Quester’s I believe in Christ. ([long URL cut] ) See it’s not hard to source, try it, you‘ll like it!
Here again is that inconsistency thing. Since you reject logic, that's not that surprising.
Logic, you see, is based on non-contradiction. A thing cannot be both A and ~A at the same time and in the same respect. That's because all things hold together in Christ and in Him we live and move and have our being and He cannot deny Himself. (No, I'm not sourcing that. Be careful! There's pagan Greek influence in there!) A refusal in principle to be persuaded by logic means accepting contradictions, which means you believe in a Christ who can deny himself, which is no Christ at all.
Hey, I have no idea what it is you think I was supposed to know BECAUSE you have done nothing but call me names and blather about superiority of intellect (which is the only thing funny about your posts)
If you'd like a good place to start, try knowing what you're talking about.
And while you're working on that, how about a SOURCE for where I said anything about "superiority of intellect".
>> when a little searching on the internet
Links please…
You've outdone yourself. Hey, there's a straw! Clutch clutch clutch!
Try my first post.
Yes, Lured, no luring implies an evil intent.
"Incoherent sentences show incoherent thinking." --Me
Reading your posts I can only picture a stern octogenarian with a dour expression of disapproval. My mental image would make a real good Quaker poster child, if this is not you, you might want to change your posting style.
The only thing I don't like is that "Quaker" part. I'm more of a Puritan.