Evidence for God from Science

Nessa wrote:

jenna wrote:sorry, cant help myself here

I'm personally holding out for the showdown at high noon...



Seriously though, while not taking sides, I think to keep the emotionalism out of this would help*


*the irony of me saying that is not lost on me

yep. i was trying to throw a little humor in here, i hope it helps ease the tension.

Y'all worry too much.

Jac3510 wrote:Y'all worry too much.

Maybe it was all just friendly banter?

Of course is one TRULY wishes to understand bible translations and the process one can actually take a course on it and understand it at the academic level.
Or they can do this.

YES, the mods ARE aware of this post and the destructive back and forth. I did not see it until last night. But it stops HERE and NOW!

While I don't agree with some of Jac's emotional response, I can see why he had it. He offered informed information and a link to past posts that address Audacity's assertions. But Audacity didn't address THOSE, he acted as if Jac was ONLY responding personally. Jac has many years of study and theological studies and understandings that offer scholarly insights to the pertinent texts of the Bible. So cheap shots and half-baked assertions are NOT what I would call a legitimate response. While I think Jac took his response too far, I do see why he's upset. He really hates to see half-baked stuff floated. And then when he takes the time to thoughtfully respond to such, and he's met with just arrogance that shows one isn't serious about understanding the issue - well, it really ticks him off.

Audacity: Personally, I dislike how you insist on putting your replies on a personal basis: you against whomever you disagree with, rather than keeping to the issues themselves. And that I've been forced to play your game here in order to set things straight doesn't help resolve the issue at all. I suggest that you take stock of your posting practices and stop being so arrogant, personally antagonistic, and purposely impolite.

The above is an example of a dishonest response! As Jac DID first offer a response that was entirely appropriate, thoughtful, and not in any way personal. That is not "playing a game." That is an assertion often made by those who don't have an answer to factual information - and so instead of attacking the argument or information, they disingenuously attempt change it over to only being a matter of a personal issue or attack. You failed to address the information contained in what he said about the issue at hand, and also linked to. Yes, Jac wasn't "polite" - but I can see why. And who the heck is "Brian?"

Audacity, I must ask why you are here? Seems you just feast upon controversy and are here to mostly argue or instill doubt about Christian teachings and the Bible. You have already been banned. You later began posting under another name - that's called being deceptive! And it seems you are right back at the same stuff that got you banned the last time. If all you want to do is continuously argue against Christianity and you really don't care what information or studied understandings are brought forward, then you should LEAVE! This is not a forum for those only wanting to pointlessly stir up issue after issue, for no real reason other than to bash Christianity.

Audacity, the mods have deemed you on thin ice - and VERY thin! Posting and being on this forum is a privilege, not a right.

Philip wrote:YES, the mods ARE aware of this post and the destructive back and forth. I did not see it until last night. But it stops HERE and NOW!

While I don't agree with some of Jac's emotional response, I can see why he had it. He offered informed information and a link to past posts that address Audacity's assertions. But Audacity didn't address THOSE, he acted as if Jac was ONLY responding personally. Jac has many years of study and theological studies and understandings that offer scholarly insights to the pertinent texts of the Bible. So cheap shots and half-baked assertions are NOT what I would call a legitimate response. While I think Jac took his response too far, I do see why he's upset. He really hates to see half-baked stuff floated. And then when he takes the time to thoughtfully respond to such, and he's met with just arrogance that shows one isn't serious about understanding the issue - well, it really ticks him off.

Audacity: Personally, I dislike how you insist on putting your replies on a personal basis: you against whomever you disagree with, rather than keeping to the issues themselves. And that I've been forced to play your game here in order to set things straight doesn't help resolve the issue at all. I suggest that you take stock of your posting practices and stop being so arrogant, personally antagonistic, and purposely impolite.

The above is an example of a dishonest response! As Jac DID first offer a response that was entirely appropriate, thoughtful, and not in any way personal. That is not "playing a game." That is an assertion often made by those who don't have an answer to factual information - and so instead of attacking the argument or information, they disingenuously attempt change it over to only being a matter of a personal issue or attack. You failed to address the information contained in what he said about the issue at hand, and also linked to. Yes, Jac wasn't "polite" - but I can see why. And who the heck is "Brian?"

"Brian" is Jac's real name. His having been a member for over 12 years and fairly well respected, so I gather, I thought this would be common knowledge, at least among the staff.

Audacity, I must ask why you are here?

I've found that very few Christians have any concept of the ramifications of their beliefs. Most being totally unprepared to defend the underpinnings of their assertions, pretty much going through life with a relatively unexamined faith. Now, for those who have no desire to defend their faith or prefer not to even think about it, that's fine. However, for those who do, those who perhaps find talking with the choir a bit of a bore, I'm offering them a chance to examine and perhaps discuss their beliefs with someone on the other side. Think of it as a chance to apply Socrates' dictum that "The unexamined life is not worth living." Of course this isn't a wholly unselfish enterprise on my part. It also helps me define my positions as well, and I find that temperate debate and exercising my reasoning skills to be satisfying in of itself. Of course, if you feel this kind of discourse has no place in the Christian life, or no place on Evidence for God from Science I won't pursue it any further. That said, I found Kurieuo's thread, The Delusion of "Free Will" to be very enlightening and fun, and look forward to participating in other nonreligious topics.

Audacity wrote:"Brian" is Jac's real name. His having been a member for over 12 years and fairly well respected, so I gather, I thought this would be common knowledge, at least among the staff.

Not even close my man.

audacity wrote:

"Brian" is Jac's real name. His having been a member for over 12 years and fairly well respected, so I gather, I thought this would be common knowledge, at least among the staff.

My Goodness gracious! I've got to apologize to Jac. I've been calling him by another name for a while now.

Forgive me, Brian?

Byblos wrote:

Audacity wrote:"Brian" is Jac's real name. His having been a member for over 12 years and fairly well respected, so I gather, I thought this would be common knowledge, at least among the staff.

Not even close my man.

What? You think it's Paul?

Audacity wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Audacity wrote:"Brian" is Jac's real name. His having been a member for over 12 years and fairly well respected, so I gather, I thought this would be common knowledge, at least among the staff.

Not even close my man.

What? You think it's Paul?

Stop it man you're killing me.

Post edit: Not that it makes any difference what his real name is but I can assure you Jac's name is neither Brian nor Paul. So either you are confused as to who you think he is, or ... well I don't have an or so I guess you're just confused.

Byblos wrote:

Audacity wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Audacity wrote:"Brian" is Jac's real name. His having been a member for over 12 years and fairly well respected, so I gather, I thought this would be common knowledge, at least among the staff.

Not even close my man.

What? You think it's Paul?

Stop it man you're killing me.

Post edit: Not that it makes any difference what his real name is but I can assure you Jac's name is neither Brian nor Paul. So either you are confused as to who you think he is, or ... well I don't have an or so I guess you're just confused.

Thou doth protest too much.

Audacity wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Audacity wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Audacity wrote:"Brian" is Jac's real name. His having been a member for over 12 years and fairly well respected, so I gather, I thought this would be common knowledge, at least among the staff.

Not even close my man.

What? You think it's Paul?

Stop it man you're killing me.

Post edit: Not that it makes any difference what his real name is but I can assure you Jac's name is neither Brian nor Paul. So either you are confused as to who you think he is, or ... well I don't have an or so I guess you're just confused.

Thou doth protest too much.

Watchu talkin about willis? No protesting, merely correcting confusion.

Audacity was just trying to lighten the mood, right?

I'm going to start calling him Brian anyway

I know he's around here somwhere?

He's easy to confuse, heh heh - he's known to go by several very clever aliases. In the hood he's known as "Jac the Ripper." (Seems he got that nickname as he's rather fond of eating large quantities of beans ).