Posted on 08/20/2002 2:15:59 PM PDT by restornu
Perhaps I was "luckier" than you . I have heard that people abused by their dads have a difficult time relating to a loving father.
Me?? I was an agnostic for a while..but when I met Christ and I raced intop His arms
Aric..no matter what you end up believeing the biggest thing is to forgive the abuser...not for them ...for you
My mon is gone But I was still able to forgive her..I pray the same peace for you!
I do not like ceremonies, or rituals, or any other practice prescribed by an organized religion. I also do not accept any "creed" of any orgnaized religion. I really do understand, not only why you believe that much, but, in fact agree with you.
The one thing you stated that I would like to question is the phrase, "so I do what I feel is right for myself". I do not question what you do being for yourself, but the suggestion that how you determine what is good for is by your feelings, rather than your best rational understanding. Feelings are very deceptive, and are non-cognitive. I hope you were only using an expression and actually mean you do what you understand, using your best reason, is best for you.
I told you I believe the Bible, and if you hang around these threads you will see I don't take it lightly, and know it pretty well. My beleif in it is based on my best rational judgement of all that I know, not any kind of blind faith.
If you believe the Bible teaches anything that you cannot rationally agree with, it will either be something the Bible does not actually teach, but some organized religion calling itself Christian says it does, or you have not understood it. This is what I think, but you could easily prove me wrong.
Try something for me, will you? Ask me about anything in the Bible you believe makes it untrue, something you believe the Bible teaches that you believe is rationally unacceptable.
I will honestly answer what I believe the Bible actually teaches regarding that point. Test me. It will be good for me. It might be good for you, too. It can't hurt?
Thanks! Hank
I think so too, and no one has to be convinced. It will give us both a chance to sharpen our swords without actually sticking anyone.
Hank
You'd better believe that I've bookmarked this nugget of truth!
It may be poor sportsmanship, it may be bad form, but to qualify as an ad hominem, there must be an actual attempt to denegrate the arguer. What you have here is bad manners, which you are entitled to point out, but not an ad hominem, except by stretching the definition beyond anything easily warranted. Is a contempuous smirk an ad hominem argument? Jerky behavior comes in categories--you can't just call everything dismissive an ad hominem argument. The boat will sink under the load, and the phrase will become valueless. A fallacious argument requires, first of all, an argument.
Well, this has already gone on too long, so here's one more attempt to close the gap. I think I agree with you with a caveat.
The dictionary definition says, " ... marked by an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made..." So I suppose that in the context of your friend's 'response', whether it was an 'ad hominem' attack depends on whether, by assigning my response to an unrelated group ("creationists") to which he referred in derision, he was attempting to launch "an attack on an opponent's character." My point would be that there would be no other reason to purport to align me with an unrelated group.
He surely didn't do it to build me up. Be that as it may, I guess I'll be satisfied with the admission of your friend's "poor sportsmanship [and] bad form."
Specific antigens created by the body's immune system would be an example of "organs" that are not created by successive, slight modifications. Darwin's opinion to the contrary notwithstanding, successive modification does not turn out to be the primary means by which biological micromachines like flagella and such are built. The body has a spare parts inventory it plays around with--the immune system is an example of that which we've managed to gain a clear understanding of, but is clearly not the only such.
It may be. It also may be exhaustion with the bad manners, bullying attitudes, zany left-field arguments, and underhanded crying-to-mommy tactics of certain creationists, or creationist look-alikes, here on this thread. Were I of the creationist pursuasion, I'd not be thinking to offer a course on good manners on this particular thread.
Making Monkeys Out of Evolutionists Wednesday, August 28, 2002 By Cal Thomas
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.