Actually, I wasn't offended at all. I was merely wanting to know, given your apparent naturalistic bent, how you are in a position to know whether or not there is a in the first place. You spoke as one with certainty, not me. My belief in comes as a byproduct of a faith commitment to God -- I am not able to find whether or not heaven or exists any more than you are. They lay outside of our metaphysical realm. You can't discover it any more than you can travel outside of the universe. I believe in it solely because the God that I know has spoken of it in his word.
Second, I don't "bash gays," "shoot thugs," or "try to convert everyone." That's ignorant. And I'm not that old.
nice try but several posts in the political forum you bash gays before even getting into the "moral or religious" parts of it , in the gun control thread you say you feel the need to protect yourself and "scurr" thugs away and just like every bible thumper on the forum you do try to push your beliefs on everyone through your posts. so fail, fail, try again?
Um, no. If by "bashing gays" you mean I "took a political and moral position on their activity," then fine. But I have never, and will never, advocate violence or discrimination against them, nor do I promote caricatures over who and what they are. I thought that's what bashing was.
And, again, by calling me a "bible thumper" who "pushes my beliefs on others," you have revealed two things: (1) you have a prejudice against conservative evangelicals, and (2) you are less tolerant of me than I am of sexuals.
Forums are about the open exchange of ideas. People have different opinions -- the whole field of ethics (and philosophy!) is geared toward discussing what is, and what ought to be. We do this, to a degree, at ST. If you don't like others' opinions, then you have the right to disagree in writing. Or ignore the opinions, that's fine too. But don't expect others to believe that you are any less guilty of trying to push your beliefs on others than I am.
Bottom line: you said "there is no ." I said, "what makes you so sure?" It wasn't personal against you.
And lastly, I never questioned your right not to defend yourself. I take it as my duty and right to defend my house. If you don't, then that's your call. Good luck against any lowlife who decides to invade your house.
But I'm certainly not one who plans on prowling the streets looking for people to kill.
to be fair, i said "sometimes i wish there was a ". while obviously that implies that i question that there is, it can't be completely interpreted the way you did which is when you took offense and gave your over dramatic response.
I hope that these other two kids get sexual assault/abuse exams. Authorities also need to find out if this guy has any other kids from other relationships and question them.At a hearing Tuesday afternoon, the mother was denied custody of her two other children: a 6-year-old girl and a 10-month-old boy. They are in foster care and will be kept from seeing their mother and other relatives, for now, Olguin said.
Criminal neglect, anyone? At the very least.Police are considering possible charges against the mother, Lovelace said.
I think that's the exception and not the rule. For the most part, a crime of violence is going to result in a harsher sentence than a drug offense of the same offense level.
I do agree that our drug laws are unduly harsh though.
Main Entry: 1evan·gel·i·cal
Pronunciation: \ˌē-ˌvan-ˈje-li-kəl, ˌe-vən-\
Variant(s): also evan·gel·ic \-ik\
Function: adjective
Date: 1531
1: of, relating to, or being in agreement with the Christian gospel especially as it is presented in the four Gospels
2: protestant
3: emphasizing salvation by faith in the atoning death of Jesus Christ through personal conversion, the authority of Scripture, and the importance of preaching as contrasted with ritual
4 acapitalized : of or relating to the Evangelical Church in Germany boften capitalized : of, adhering to, or marked by fundamentalism : fundamentalist coften capitalized : low church
5: marked by militant or crusading zeal : evangelistic <the evangelical ardor of the movement's leaders — Amos Vogel>
The fact that you are describing yourself as evagelistical could be interpreted to mean you push your beliefs on others. Just sayin...
Possible -- but clearly not what I mean when using the word "evangelical" to describe me. I would be fine with the first 3 definitions, and only the 5th in a very limited manner. I would argue that the number of evangelical (5th def.) atheists at ST outnumbers the number of evangelical Christians here.
Yeah, I caught that. Your initial post obviously implied that you question whether or not exists. And I used humor to make my point -- that you couldn't possibly know whether or not it does. But I was not offended, and I apologize if I came off as condescending or "judgmental" to you.
So you are open, then, to the possibility of ?
and i would argue that you must not have participated in the 1000s of great and meaningful (sarcasm) religious debates that have taken place here. and from my experience reading through the threads, it's always the evangelical christians that go on and on and on and on to prove their point. my two cents anyways.
Impossible. Evangelical atheist is an oxymoron.
I refuse to turn this into that type of thread. A 3 year old kid was beat to death, let's discuss that instead.
You mean to say that there are no atheists known for their militant and crusading zeal? None?
In studying the movement, I've found them to be getting more bold. Atheism used to be an academic and intellectual movement which didn't have much influence in the "real world." We're talking Renaissance and Enlightenment here -- most of the common folk were theists. As atheism became a more mainstream movement, regular average joes have picked it up, which is fine, but it's alot more socially acceptable today to be one than it used to be. And it should come as no surprise that they've become alot more bold and aggressive. Read Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, et al. And all of them have made it their life's work to destroying belief in God (read the foreword to Dawkins' latest book) -- so, they are very evangelical in that regard.
Okay, fine. This creep is going to for beating this kid to death.
I think you need to revisit the definition of "evangelical."
Hey ... you're the one giving me Webster's, doofis! Definition 5 -- somebody with militant or crusading zeal.
5: marked by militant or crusading zeal : evangelistic <the evangelical ardor of the movement's leaders
I wouldn't call atheism a "movement", but I can see your point.
absolutely disgusting. anyone that is capable of BEATING a CHILD to death is a sick inhumane individual that should not ever be let out into society again. Someone that is capable of doing that, is capable of doing anything just as/even more horrific. that man should never see the light of day again. leave him in solitary confinement for life. let him go crazy. that is just sick.
Well, the guy was toked up on cocaine. Like they say, "it's a uva drug."
But yes, this man is going to have to face the music for this, in the courtroom, in prison, and eternally.
The subjunctive mood can connote uncertainty rather than contraindication. atxrocker should be advised, however, that the verb "to be" is unique in the English language in that it is conjugated differently in the subjunctive mood, such that the grammatically correct form is, "I wish there were a ."Ladies and gentlemen of ST ... we have a time and space traveler!
Come behold the first human being to successfully step outside of space and time as we know it -- ATXrocksmoker!In his latest trip outside of the bounds of the universe, he was able to determine that there is, indeed, no . No word on how he was able to determine this.
So, tell us ... rocker, do the Spurs repeat this year?
And I'm saying, there IS a ! So this guy will get his.
Good news, right?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
