Why is young earth so important?

[Jac3510]

*shrug* Fair enough. That's your choice. But you'll forgive me if I'm not terribly impressed by someone who on the one hand claims to want to do their due diligence and then on the other pretend that propositions are not, in fact, propositions. Such inconsistency is less offensive than boring.

As for the length, you raised more than a few issues that needed to be addressed. Ultimately many of those are worth their own thread, but I hope you don't expect to be allowed to make sweeping statements and them not be challenged; or, at least, you ought not expect that I won't share why those statements don't move me. It's rather sad that you've chosen to look at us--or at least at me--as so ridiculous as to think that we'd make such basic errors as the one you have identified (I'm thinking here of the Wager remark) . . . as if you, in your search so far, have discovered something that we have not, even though many of us have been studying this for our whole lives, and some of us studying and teaching this formally for some time.

In any case, all the best in your search!

edit: TOP OF THE PAGE!

[Audie]

*shrug* Fair enough. That's your choice. But you'll forgive me if I'm not terribly impressed by someone who on the one hand claims to want to do their due diligence and then on the other pretend that propositions are not, in fact, propositions. Such inconsistency is less offensive than boring.

As for the length, you raised more than a few issues that needed to be addressed. Ultimately many of those are worth their own thread, but I hope you don't expect to be allowed to make sweeping statements and them not be challenged; or, at least, you ought not expect that I won't share why those statements don't move me. It's rather sad that you've chosen to look at us--or at least at me--as so ridiculous as to think that we'd make such basic errors as the one you have identified (I'm thinking here of the Wager remark) . . . as if you, in your search so far, have discovered something that we have not, even though many of us have been studying this for our whole lives, and some of us studying and teaching this formally for some time.

In any case, all the best in your search!

edit: TOP OF THE PAGE!

As Phil noted, there is snarky, snobby, snooty, intellectual-soundin'. That is only the beginning. I will not stoop to your level, please refrain from addressing me again.

[Audie]

*shrug* Fair enough. That's your choice. But you'll forgive me if I'm not terribly impressed by someone who on the one hand claims to want to do their due diligence and then on the other pretend that propositions are not, in fact, propositions. Such inconsistency is less offensive than boring.

As for the length, you raised more than a few issues that needed to be addressed. Ultimately many of those are worth their own thread, but I hope you don't expect to be allowed to make sweeping statements and them not be challenged; or, at least, you ought not expect that I won't share why those statements don't move me. It's rather sad that you've chosen to look at us--or at least at me--as so ridiculous as to think that we'd make such basic errors as the one you have identified (I'm thinking here of the Wager remark) . . . as if you, in your search so far, have discovered something that we have not, even though many of us have been studying this for our whole lives, and some of us studying and teaching this formally for some time.

In any case, all the best in your search!

edit: TOP OF THE PAGE!

I will not engage in an uncivil conversation. Please refrain from addressing me further.

[Byblos]

I will not engage in an uncivil conversation. Please refrain from addressing me further.

Can you pinpoint exactly where Jac was uncivil? Perhaps his brutal honesty is mistaken for lack of civility but that's all it is, a mistaken assumption (unless I've missed it somewhere).

[Audie]

I will not engage in an uncivil conversation. Please refrain from addressing me further.

Can you pinpoint exactly where Jac was uncivil? Perhaps his brutal honesty is mistaken for lack of civility but that's all it is, a mistaken assumption (unless I've missed it somewhere).

"Brutal" Nah. Im a big city girl.
Try obnoxious.

I can handle rough and tumble, but I do not accept that it was "honest' other than it may be honestly how he feels. There is nothing honest in making up things about me.

Identify specifically?
I can, yes, but I am not going to. I think Phil expressed it well enough, though he stopped short. The mistaken assumption there, is yours.

The mistaken assumption here..3. Non-Christians who are willing to "walk a thin line" and dialogue sensatively and respectfully.
appears to have been mine. I thought this might apply to all, that this was a forum that was dedicated to civil discourse.

Im sorry to see it is either only applied to atheists, or that its entirely insincere.

I came here intending to be polite and respectful, I wont be goaded into doing otherwise, so I wont respond to any posts such as the one under discussion

[Jac3510]

Audie, if you're so offended by me, you can always put me on ignore. There was nothing uncivilized or impolite in what I said. If you took offense, that was your own choice. The one who has the right to be offended is me. You took a very straightforward question and interpreted in a most uncharitable fashion, impugning my intelligence and ability to handle this material. You say you can handle rough and tumble, but as soon as I call you out on that you go yelping like a hit dog. That tells me a lot about how "rough and tumble" you can get. I've been extremely polite to you. It's a shame you can't return the favor.

And being goaded? Hah. I meant what I said to you before. I appreciate your tone. It has been a breath of fresh air. But from the beginning and even now you've never given me any reason to change my opinion about atheists. You want to have an "honest and civil" discussion, but as soon as I am honest about anything, you get angry. You all do. You write off as "snooty" what is simply a statement of fact. Could I not call you "snooty" when you complained about the article Rick posted "losing" you when it denied evolutionary "science"? I could have, but I did not such thing, because unlike you, I'm willing to have a rational conversation.

In other words, you are typical. I hope you surprise me and show yourself willing to have a rational conversation, which requires being willing to discuss matters honestly that you disagree with. But so long as you insist on talking about things from your perspective and within your own bubble, your due dilligence will never pay off. So maybe I'll see you asking real questions of real importance, and hopefully on the philosophy section. I guess we'll see, but forgive me if I won't be holding my breath.

[Philip]

My late night attempt at humor was just to rib Jac a bit, kid him about his sometimes pedantic-infused length in his posts, and his often-blunt style - all aspects that the regulars around here all know so well . It's just that, in his bluntness, sometimes people are offended. The post I reacted to, while serious and with some good points, nonetheless cracked me up because, well, it was just classic Jac. But if one is willing to look beyond his style, you'll see he's sincere and puts a lot of thought, effort and study into his posts. What really cracks me up is that sometimes his return posts (retorts) read like a sardonic, sarcastic C.S. Lewis . So, Audie, don't take him too personally - at least not most of the time. Think about and respond to what he writes, and pay less attention to his warm, fuzzy personal style .

[Jac3510]

Laconic replies are not my strong suit . . .

But for what it is worth, you should have seen the volume I used to produce ten years ago. There was one poor user named ipazia who was subjected to my barrage of words. She once asked if jac3510 was one person or a single screen name for a group of people!

You can get a taste of how bad it really was if you go back to the Is Calvinism a Heresy thread started by Religious Fanatic or maybe the Seven Reasons NOT to Ask Jesus into Your Heart thread. Some of those posts got downright garrulous!

For what it is worth, I lol'd when I read your "late night attempt at humor."

edit:

I blame FL. He's been a bad influence on me.

[Byblos]

I blame FL. He's been a bad influence on me.

Ban FL.

[RickD]

I blame FL. He's been a bad influence on me.

Ban FL.

[sarcasm]Better yet, we'll make him a mod.[/sarcasm]

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

My thought was that men decided which ancient writingsmade the final cut to go in our modern Bible, so is it not possible that some apocrypha slipped thru?

The apocrypha is still around if you want to consult it. With the exception of that contained in Roman Catholic Bibles, apocrypha is obviously garbage. It is little wonder that it wasn't included in the Bible.

Don't lose any sleep over this.

FL

Obvious to who, and why?

As for losing sleep... Not me, not for that!

Audie the Honda driver! sorry...I forgot about this thread because I was busy insulting someone.

To answer your question, ''Obvious to who, and why?'' obvious to anyone who takes the time to read the apocrypha. Few people bother to read them, just like few people bother to read Darwin's Origin Of Species. Why? ...many reasons. But it would be pointless to go into these until you have read the Bible.

And, Audie, you are doing yourself a disservice by ignoring Jac.

I blame FL. He's been a bad influence on me.

I'm flattered, Jac! I'm pleased to have been an influence on you, YOU! ...even if it is a bad influence. This calls for a celebration!

FL

[Jac3510]

Your bad influence hasn't gone far enough to get me to drink beer. Yick.

But if you would like to celebrate with a glass (or two, or three, or maybe a couple of bottles) of a good red wine--cabernet sauvignon is my preference--then we can have a grand old time. Or I'll settle for some tennessee whisky. Mmmmmmmmmmm . . .

[Philip]

Speaking of whiskey: I have a bottle of Jack Daniels in my pantry that is nearly full and was given me as a leftover after a corporate function, nearly 10 years ago. Would it be any good after so long?

[Philip]

Speaking of whiskey: I have a bottle of Jack Daniels in my pantry that is nearly full and was given me as a leftover after a corporate function, nearly 10 years ago. Would it be any good after so long?

Talk about a ...

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

Your bad influence hasn't gone far enough to get me to drink beer. Yick.

But if you would like to celebrate with a glass (or two, or three, or maybe a couple of bottles) of a good red wine--cabernet sauvignon is my preference--then we can have a grand old time. Or I'll settle for some tennessee whisky. Mmmmmmmmmmm . . .

I only have a bottle of American moonshine and a bottle of Canadian ice cider, both of which are to be mailed to a friend in Grenoble, France. I have nothing else...except Moxie. (Since my wife has left to work in the Arctic, I no longer feel the need to drink.) My favorite Cabernet Sauvignon is an American product from Liberty School winery in California.

Speaking of whiskey: I have a bottle of Jack Daniels in my pantry that is nearly full and was given me as a leftover after a corporate function, nearly 10 years ago. Would it be any good after so long?

Whiskey doesn't budge, like any distilled spirit. It is still good. Drink responsibly or send it to Jac.

FL