To: kosta50; Alamo-Girl; Dr. Eckleburg; Quix; spirited irish; MHGinTN; Godzilla; stfassisi
Why not? because you say so? Why is it that some believers think they can just lay down the rules and everyone just has to accept them, just because they say so?! The "rules" I am using are: logic and evidence. I didn't make up this stuff.
902 posted on
03/11/2010 9:55:00 AM PST by
betty boop
(Moral law is not rooted in factual laws of nature; they only tell us what happens, not what ought to)
To: betty boop; Alamo-Girl
Now, now, Betty.
You SHOULD KNOW! . . . . LOL . . .
that the tolerable rules
are ONLY
those idiosyncratic ones the particular pseudo-super-rationalist
has personally derived and mangled into his/her own unique construction on what is/ought to be
. . . particularly as allowable in verbal fencing matches [because the pseudo-super-rationalist can’t even live by his/her own irrational ‘rules’ in the rest of their personal lives.
Anything and everything else
is UNREAL
by definition.
903 posted on
03/11/2010 10:02:52 AM PST by
Quix
(BLOKES who got us where we R: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2130557/posts?page=81#81)
To: betty boop; Alamo-Girl; Dr. Eckleburg; Quix; spirited irish; MHGinTN; Godzilla; stfassisi
The "rules" I am using are: logic and evidence. Logic is subject to human undertsanidng and comprehension and evidence should be demonstrable. You said God is subject neither to logic nor provable evidence. Besides, one must be able to define what it is he believes in. Evidently, that's not possible either. So, what's left?
904 posted on
03/11/2010 10:04:51 AM PST by
kosta50
(The world is the way it is even if YOU don't understand it)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson