Reply With Quote
"Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have." -- 1 Peter 3:15a
Like I said, it's always a great idea to tell someone that they are violating a major concept of their faith when you haven't even cracked open the book of their faith in 10 years.
I don't see any of the acknowledged Christians on here disagreeing with me either, so you're jumping the gun a bit there. Are you a Christian and were you taught different?so that means they all agree?
I could care less about another poster on an internet message board. You made a statement with nothing but your ass as a source and it's idiotic to do so.I know your obsessed with proving me wrong, but you haven't proposed anything to argue against the statement.
Name some of these "many" denominations that see it as a major violation to not discuss their religion when asked.Someone posted Bible verses above relating to Jesus telling the Disciples to spread the word. Many denominiation and sects have taken that as a command to all followers, not just the specific subset of Disciples.
The Bible verses above refer to going and spreading the gospel. What Bible verse are you referring to that says it's a violation to not talk about it when asked?
I agree that your posts are completely irrelevant. They are also completely ignorant.Although I would like to apologize for the second paragraph in my last post though. I went a little too far in my attempt to stress how little most of the "Christians" I know have paid any attention to the Bible, and ended up focusing too much on what I've studied. It was completely irrelevant and I shouldn't have gone there.
"Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have." -- 1 Peter 3:15a
Why not, you used that logic to declare me wrong?Like I said, it's always a great idea to tell someone that they are violating a major concept of their faith when you haven't even cracked open the book of their faith in 10 years.
If I'm wrong cause they aren't vocally agreeing with me, then you must be wrong because they aren't vocally agreeing with you.
I made a statement that should have included a disclaimer relating to what I and everyone I know was taught. I could probably go get quotes from my friends and family and other Christians I know to support it. That'd be kind of pointless though.
I'll admit that, to be technical, I should have included a disclaimer restricting it to every Christian I've ever met instead of every Christian. But it is fairly logical to extrapolate that kind of unanimous response over that kind of sample size (several thousand) to a larger body. May not be correct, but it is logical.
1) I said violation of a major concept of their faith, not major violation. You keep trying your hardest to change what I said.
I know that's been taught in Baptist, Methodist, Episcapalion (sp), JW, and Mormon, at least in this area.
Well, gee. I already know I'll not go look something up for you, so forget that.
Sticking with the same verses, Jesus commanded the word be spread. If you refuse to talk about the faith, even when asked, that would be disobeying a command from God. Wouldn't that be a violation?
It's a message board, everyone's posts are completely irrelevant. I'm still waiting to see you make an even remotely compelling argument on anything, so I'll take that as a complement
the "prove me wrong" line is always a fail. If you can't figure out why, you are an idiot.Why not, you used that logic to declare me wrong?
you're wrong because you have failed to source your quotes from anything other than your ass.If I'm wrong cause they aren't vocally agreeing with me, then you must be wrong because they aren't vocally agreeing with you.
You're finally right on both counts. You should have posted a disclaimer or an "IMO" and it would be pointless.I made a statement that should have included a disclaimer relating to what I and everyone I know was taught. I could probably go get quotes from my friends and family and other Christians I know to support it. That'd be kind of pointless though.
talking out of your ass is anything but logical.I'll admit that, to be technical, I should have included a disclaimer restricting it to every Christian I've ever met instead of every Christian. But it is fairly logical to extrapolate that kind of unanimous response over that kind of sample size (several thousand) to a larger body. May not be correct, but it is logical.
1) I said violation of a major concept of their faith, not major violation. You keep trying your hardest to change what I said.
so I guess that covers all ChristiansI know that's been taught in Baptist, Methodist, Episcapalion (sp), JW, and Mormon, at least in this area.
Why are you asking me? According to you and your ass, you are certain that it's violating a major concept.Well, gee. I already know I'll not go look something up for you, so forget that.
Sticking with the same verses, Jesus commanded the word be spread. If you refuse to talk about the faith, even when asked, that would be disobeying a command from God. Wouldn't that be a violation?
Not true. If you post a legitimate source to back up your claims, then your posts become more relevant.It's a message board, everyone's posts are completely irrelevant. I'm still waiting to see you make an even remotely compelling argument on anything, so I'll take that as a complement
Your posts are irrelevant because you post no sources and admit that you haven't cracked a Bible in 10 years.
Well done.
Well, considering 2 people above have posted verses that support my original statement.
Besides, I told you before I don't take these things seriously. Just trying to wake up, and finding an argument is a good way to do that
I have provided no quotes what-so-ever. I have spoken fully from what I was verbally taught as a kid, and the discussions I've had with others, and have made no efforts to hide that.
So apparently, you can't even tell when someone is quoting or not. nice job.
Yes, heresey is heresey. You really love the "talking out of your ass" line.
It can be. It all depends on how you feel about shades of grey. Not everything's black/white you know.
As much as any poll can be applied outside its base sample. Probably more accurately considering the agreement in the sample.
Just seeing if you can understand the concept of breaking a command from the Saviour can be seen as a violation of the faith. I'm guessing no...
Yep, and I won't for a message board. This is for fun, and I'll rarely bother to find a source for anything on the 'net. I've already explained that in several places on the board (and specifically to you). Sorry if you don't like that I don't take a message board serious enough to do research papers for it, tough noogies
I'm wide awake now, so I'll say so.
Sounds a lot like deism to me.
when will boutons learn to use the quote function
Nope. Nothing in those verses say that it's a major concept of the Christian faith.
do you always make ignorant posts out of your ass after just waking up?Besides, I told you before I don't take these things seriously. Just trying to wake up, and finding an argument is a good way to do that
I don't think you've ever provided any quotes ever in any of your posts......which is why you are an ignorant fool that should shut the up instead of talking about violating major concepts of the Christian faith.I have provided no quotes what-so-ever. I have spoken fully from what I was verbally taught as a kid, and the discussions I've had with others, and have made no efforts to hide that.
I can tell when you're not.So apparently, you can't even tell when someone is quoting or not. nice job.
You're not.
You also just said you provided no quotes, so apparently you can't even tell when you are quoting from a real source or just your ass. Nice job.
You really love "talking out of your ass"Yes, heresey is heresey. You really love the "talking out of your ass" line.
You made it pretty clear that it's a violation of a major concept.It can be. It all depends on how you feel about shades of grey. Not everything's black/white you know.
more ass talkingAs much as any poll can be applied outside its base sample. Probably more accurately considering the agreement in the sample.
just seeing of you can actually find any real source that says "a Christian refusing to talk about their religion when asked is violating a major concept of the faith." I'm guessing no...Just seeing if you can understand the concept of breaking a command from the Saviour can be seen as a violation of the faith. I'm guessing no...
If you find it fun to look like an idiot on message boards, then great! Good for you.Yep, and I won't for a message board. This is for fun, and I'll rarely bother to find a source for anything on the 'net. I've already explained that in several places on the board (and specifically to you). Sorry if you don't like that I don't take a message board serious enough to do research papers for it, tough noogies
Well done.I'm wide awake now, so I'll say so.
What is heresey?
Does the poster mean "heresy" or "hearsay"? LOL.
It's supporting evidence. Not a "smoking gun," but still supporting evidence. Like I said, I don't care enough to actually go look for anything. It's not like they're my beliefs
Not that I agree with ignorant, but when I'm having trouble staying a wake I tend to make a lot of posts and argue things for the of it. It's fun. I know you think so too
Didn't I just say I rarely (if ever) provide quotes? Wow, you won't even take my word on my own posts. That's just funny.
LOL. Okay... For this to make any sense what-so-ever, you'd have to prove I quoted something, WITHOUT KNOWING I quoted something. This just makes sooooooooooooo much sense.
Especially since you just agreed with my statement that I haven't provided any quotes.
And then, when asked, I clarified that it was to the Christians I've known. Most people would have left it at that clarification, especially since you basically said earlier that if I had that as a disclaimer on the original post, you would have ignored it.
I mean, come on now...
Okay, so you're saying taking data from a subset of people and applying to the whole at large is NOT a poll?
That's just idiotic. You want to claim unreliable data (coming from my conversations and memory, which you have access to a quote that can be taken out of context from me calling my memory fuzzy), or a biased poll, that's fine.
Pretty idiotic when you know I won't even when I can. I see you like to waste time as much as I do.
You've said this to me before, and the answer is still the same.
Sorry about that. Hearsay. Never claimed to be a competent speller, at least not recently.
if it is what you say, then it shouldn't be that hard to find for you.It's supporting evidence. Not a "smoking gun," but still supporting evidence. Like I said, I don't care enough to actually go look for anything. It's not like they're my beliefs
of course, you don't care enough to actually go look for anything.
having trouble staying awake doesn't make you ignorant. Posting something as truth without anything to back it up with makes you ignorant.Not that I agree with ignorant, but when I'm having trouble staying a wake I tend to make a lot of posts and argue things for the of it. It's fun. I know you think so too
I've never seen you provide quotes, and that would include this thread.Didn't I just say I rarely (if ever) provide quotes? Wow, you won't even take my word on my own posts. That's just funny.
I'll take your word for it that you never provide quotes, but it's not necessary as I can see that for myself.
Have you provided any quotes in this thread. In the end that's all I am suggesting you do.LOL. Okay... For this to make any sense what-so-ever, you'd have to prove I quoted something, WITHOUT KNOWING I quoted something. This just makes sooooooooooooo much sense.
I'm not surprised it doesn't make sense to you.
Right. Because you haven't provided any.Especially since you just agreed with my statement that I haven't provided any quotes.
I'm glad we agree that you don't provide quotes.
and I clarified that you are ignorant and that you were talking out of your ass.And then, when asked, I clarified that it was to the Christians I've known. Most people would have left it at that clarification, especially since you basically said earlier that if I had that as a disclaimer on the original post, you would have ignored it.
I'm saying you have no poll, no data, no nothing.Okay, so you're saying taking data from a subset of people and applying to the whole at large is NOT a poll?
Just ass talking.
You were claiming something based on your own fuzzy memory.That's just idiotic. You want to claim unreliable data (coming from my conversations and memory, which you have access to a quote that can be taken out of context from me calling my memory fuzzy), or a biased poll, that's fine.
That's just idiotic.
Pretty idiotic when you claim you can but you really can't.Pretty idiotic when you know I won't even when I can. I see you like to waste time as much as I do.
You are an ignorant fool.
It wasn't a question. It was a statement that's still the same: if you have fun looking like an idiot on a message board then great! Good for you.You've said this to me before, and the answer is still the same.
Correct. In this case it wouldn't be hard, and I don't care enough to.
No, that makes me LAZY. Ignorant would be posting something as truth without realizing it's wrong.
By this rule, if I posted "the sky is blue" without a picture or several do ented accounts of reliable people calling the sky blue, I'd be ignorant.
I'm really starting to think you either have no idea what "ignorant" means, or you just like using the word even when it doesn't apply.
Wow... You are really going in circles on that one. You can suggest all you want, I still won't do it because it would be less entertaining for me. And entertainment is what my posting here is all about.
Because the way you said it makes no sense. You responded with
To me pointing out you statement of me failing to source my quotes was incorrect because I don't provide them. I mean seriously. Forget the rest of the conversation... Does your statement make ANY sense with the fact that we've both agreed I have not provided ANY quotes here...
Okay, so is there a point to us both discussing the fact that I don't provide quotes?
And you haven't proved ignorance, only laziness (based on apathy).
LOL. Considering my data isn't do ented on paper, I guess you can argue that. But you can't argue with the methodology or applying a sample to a larger section.
Yup, I had 2 posters I had never paid serious attention to confused. That was stupid. I admitted and apologized for that.
Not really. Adds to the fun. If I back up everything I say that is right with the appropriate annotations, kind of makes it impossible to argue the wrong side once in a while for the fun of it. Besides, like I said, I have no interest in doing research papers for a message board.
Still waiting for proof of ignorance. I'm certainly a fool (in the court jester sense), and I absolutely qualify as apathetic and lazy, though.
Oh, so you're just repeating yourself ad nauseum again. Gotcha.
You don't care enough to look it up. You don't realize you are wrong.
We have long ago concluded you are lazy. You are apparently ignorant of your ignorance. congratulations.
I'm beginning to think you enjoy getting owned more than Galileo.
sense this thread is a goner, I'm curious, did you actually go to utsa or were you trying to defend those utsa freaks for the of it?
I'm not in this case.
I think I've been on UTSA campus once for a HS acadmic meet. And honestly, if I could afford to go back to college (and decided to do real classes instead of online), TX State would be a better fit for my interests.
My defense of the "freaks" consisted mostly of "it wasn't entirely their fault."
We did a pretty good job of massacring this thread, didn't we
*facepalm*
I only pay attention to signatures when they have hot chicks in them.
you didn't back up your source.
I know it's fun to run around saying you're right just because you think so, but it doesn't prove the claim you tried to make.
actually it was mostly all their fault. I'd show the proof, but the threads have been deleted. If you ask Kori, she'll verify, although you'll probably still figure out a way to think it wasn't their entirely their fault.My defense of the "freaks" consisted mostly of "it wasn't entirely their fault."
Never tried to prove it, but that doesn't make me wrong either
And no, let's not pick that up again, I'm done with that for now.
I watched a lot of it, and it was quite a bit their fault. Definitely strongly on the majority side of it. But it wouldn't have gotten that bad if they other side had been less antagnonistic about everything. Originally the antagonization was funny, but you could see it was going to lead to something stupid a couple days before it did.
Regardless, it's not appropriate to discuss this here, so let's call it a thread. If you really want to continue, use PM.
Was it Henry James who said civilization is little more than the social propriety of a third rate Boston colonial...?
Not just liberal, but uber-liberal, haut-liberal even.
I was maybe 11 or 12 when I went to the UU in SA. This would've been 1978-9. It definitely weirded me out, but in the end I liked their chili, and the bigger girls chased me around all night, so it wasn't a total loss.
Last edited by Winehole23; 04-21-2009 at 07:31 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions