>> I don't care what you've seen. You've decided (as the self-appointed evaluator of the
>>thread) that proving my point is "bad form". Of course, just saying I knew would be
>>"unsourced", so in our intellectually superior evaluator's impartial judgement, any
>>answer gives him a win.
Whatever
>> Or maybe it's just you.
Yep, its me.
>> You should've just stoppped at "no", as we shall see.
You should have just stopped period.
>> had all those too, plus I care about logic, while you, by your own admission, don't.
Me too, me too! Im rubber and your Glue, whatever
>>>> You have misquoted me, interpreted my meanings with tortured understanding, and
>>>>now want to insist that I am not a Christian because of it. This little quote from your
>>>>prior post proves my condemnation of your tactics (not of you personally) to be
>>>>justified.
>> No, it just shows that it's over your head.
So, according to you, my own posts are over my head, I can make arguments that I dont understand, and therefore need you to reinterpret them down to my level?
What a ludicrous argument, I love it!
>> By "a witness directly from God" you mean the famous "burning bosom" right?
>>Or was it some other equally subjective personal experience? Either way, you trust it
>>over logic, which necessarily means you trust your subjective experience even if it
>>makes Christ deny Himself.
I never told you what my witness was, and I dont plan to its personal and too sacred for me to share with you. But it was very specific, not just a feeling, there is no mistake on my part.
>> Trust me, a few days after we stop I won't remember much of this at all. But if you
>>can't muster up enough short-term memory to keep track of the flow of conversation,
>>you need to give up having a conversation.
Im ready when you are, no, Im more ready than you are. You are a boring person to argue with.
>> So the passage I'm talking about includes a discussion of witnesses, a mention of the
>>fact that most were still alive, and putting his own experience last. Now, for those out
>>there who really are diligent searchers of Scripture, which passage might that have
>>been?
>> That's right: earlier in that same chapter. But you didn't suggest 1 Corinthians
>>5:1-11, you suggested 1 Corinthians 15:11-33, neatly missing the passage!
Neatly missing the passage, (Grin), and you think it was an accident, (Bigger Grin) You said you didnt need to source, I said you should so no one would get the passage you were referring to wrong, you said if I knew the scriptures I would know the passage, I said you should post sources so you could debate tighter arguments. You said and why should I be accountable to you, I said you should be accountable to someone (and suggested your wife, if youve got one) I also stated that by not sourcing you could jump to any scripture in the area and say it was your source. Do you really think I went to the right chapter and missed the first 11 verses? Witness which was my supposed latching point only occurs twice in all of Corinthians. (It took me a while to figure out what to use to make this plausible) It does not appear here until the 15th verse, so why did I start with 11? If I were a gambling man Id love to play poker with you! I set you up, I gave you a miss so close you should have seen that I was parodying you, and at the same time I prove my point that by not sourcing you are Cheating. No source = no position, you would have been thrown out of every high school debating class in the nation for acting the way you do here. Yet, you get on a high horse and say me too or So you say depending on the comments leveled against you. As I said, a good debater will always ask for a reference, which I did. You flatly refused because you do not seem to be able to play on a level playing field. So, I did the only thing I could, I tricked you.
>> You really blundered this one. Just think, you could have just said "1 Corinthians" and
>>gone for the baptism for the dead bit just as easily. But no! You just had to add verse
>>references, and now you're exposed for a buffoon.
Yep. I thought about doing just that, but you would continue to refuse to source your scriptures in the future, and this was fun. (I know you puritans dont like humor, TOUGH!)
>>And just so you don't accuse me of dodging the question, I Deny it.
I can neither confirm nor deny
I didnt really care about the answer, I wanted the response I have elicited here, the gloating, the premature dancing on my grave, all of it, beautiful!
Good etiquette dictates that the dancing on the grave not commence until the funeral is over. -- Emily Post
The rumors of my death have been greatly exaggerated Mark Twain ( http://today.java.net/cs/user/view/cs_msg/7200 )
>>>>instead he testified, boldly I might add, of Jesus Christs divinity, suffering in the
>>>>garden, crucifixion, and resurrection.
>>No, he didn't.
He most certainly testified of Jesus Christs divinity, If you are saved, then he testified of the Atonement which happened in the garden, if he testified of the Resurrection, then he testified of Christ giving up his life for you on the cross that he might take it again after three days thus breaking the bands of death.
>>Are you sloppy, or a liar?
Are you stupid or just gullible? (GRIN) I love these when did you stop beating your wife questions.
>>>>I the original author of the post being edited say there was.
>>I don't care what you say.
You obviously dont care what you say either. I however do care what I say. You keep misquoting me, so I keep correcting the record (which long ago started sounding broken)
>>>>If you wish to avoid charges of creative editing of Rhetorical conversations, include
>>>>the whole conversation. A recorded conversation (especially humorous ones)
>>>>Seldom have correct sentence structure Yeah for example, is not a complete
>>sentence, but occurs often in conversations.
>>Except it wasn't a recorded conversation, it was your failure to write coherently.
Have you ever written a Rhetorical conversation for humor? What am I thinking, a puritan writing humor? Sorry for asking, I understand why you dont get this now.
>>I have been referencing from http://www.NewAdvent.org for a really long time, much
>>longer than this thread has existed, Many of Hippolytuss works did not survive into
>>the current day because they were written in Greek and the church went toward Latin.
>>Oh? And didn't you say his works were lost because the "heretics won", until I
>>demonstrated that actually his major work denouncing heretics survived?
Straight from the New Advent Website, with links of course (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07360c.htm )
Hippolytus was the most important theologian and the most prolific religious writer of the Roman Church in the pre-Constantinian era. Nevertheless the fate of his copious literary remains has been unfortunate. Most of his works have been lost or are known only through scattered fragments, while much has survived only in old translations into Oriental and Slavic languages; other writings are freely interpolated. The fact that the author wrote in Greek made it inevitable that later, when that language was no longer understood in Rome, the Romans lost interest in his writings
I said most of his works were lost, yes. New Advent states that in this passage. I opined that if the Heretics won they would not work hard to translate his works into Modern language and thus impugn themselves.
>>I guess your own posts are also trivial to you. That, or you'll throw out anything at all
>>and get angry at whoever calls you on it.
Not angry, annoyed when you try to twist what I have said, or take it out of context. The annoyance is not pride but that others might actually believe I said what you have slaughtered.
>>>>my comments about you being sloppy are because you refused to source your
>>>>statements of fact from the very Bible you are now claiming to source from.
>>Maybe I was hoping you'd expose yourself, yet again, as an ignoramus.
>>Which you've now done.
Yep, Im exposed alright (Smile)
Please All of us, this thread was to be a cordial discussion and some how it seems it became a testosterone contest...
Some here right off the bat bring with them whether they know it or not the spirit of contention, which leaves the Lord out of the conversation!
Some of you think of the LDS as "heretics" would you not say that makes it in possible for us to have a conversation where the Lord is welcome with that mindset?
The LDS is not Al Queda, we are your neightbors, taxs payers, many service along side you in military, vote to up hold family values, and maintain wholesome communites!
LDS as well as in every faith that proclaims Jesus Christ is our Redeemer and Savior!
Why is it so hard to for all of us to speak amiable to each other!
For all of us when we get so wrap that the spirit of Lord is not welcome who are we defending PRIDE?
I pray some how we can learn for all of our sakes to be able to exchange view knowing that the Lord can edify our thoughts!
Shorter DelphiUser: I MEANT to! Honest!