al-Taqiyya

[WildBlueYonder]

There's something annoying about that way of posting. I'll demonstrate. We'll go look up Peter's reinstatement and then discuss why your point only reinforces what I'm telling you.

As to what's annoying? If you put chapter and verse in there, instead of just referring to the story, I tend to stick more to the chapter and verse, and not waste both our time collecting references.

I thought we were on the same page, John 21:15-19. I'll make an effort just for you, so that we do not go in circles, but I'll insist that you stay on topic, fair enough?

 

[Tiassa]

I thought we were on the same page, John 21:15-19.

No wonder you mentioned my source citations.

I'll make an effort just for you, so that we do not go in circles, but I'll insist that you stay on topic, fair enough?

Then I must insist that you open your mind so that it is at least broader than a strand of fishing line.

Your version of "on topic" is a little bit obsessive, Randolfo.

 

[Tiassa]

so your saying wicca is better than logic?

That's like comparing apples to ... black holes.

or at least has some magical essesnce?

Yes, it does. However, I see nothing in your posting history that indicates you would understand that kind of "magical essence," and much that suggests you would not.

I think magic, intuition & passion are not very logical or scientific planes in the realms of human endevor

They serve different purposes.

so, how does wicca fit into science, are they mutually exclusive, merged or ?

Disparate classifications within the same whole.

I have, you just don't get it, my pointy-eared friend

Funny, I could have sworn you were the green-blooded Vulcan, what with your inability to look beyond what you call logic.

also, speaking about "getting to the point", why have you felt like setting this thread on a tangent? if you feel so strongly about this subject, why don't you start a thread on Peter's lie, instead of trying to hijack this one?

Hijack?

Look, Randolfo, if you don't have an argument to make, that's fine. But "lying prig" is just as ugly on you as it is on anyone else.

I mean ... you did ask. I provided an example, you asked for clarification, I gave it, you wanted to argue, and now you accuse me of a threadjack?

Why don't you document that threadjack? You're welcome to do it here, in SFOG, or privately. But frankly, we can do without your sniveling--if you don't have a response, that's fine. Packing in the bullpucky? That's your own choice, boy. Don't complain to me if you don't like the stench you're putting out.

All I've done is make simple assertions regarding the four conditions under which lying is deemed acceptable. And then supported those assertions in response to the inquiries of others.

Now that you're in too deep to dig yourself out, you cry, "Hijack"?

reason 1) current scientific thinking states that the universe was created by a big bang from a cosmic egg; my contension is that no one could tell what was at the beginning, its pure conjecture, pure math, QP & other exotic theories, etc... want some string for your Schroeder's cat?

People place too much faith in Schroedinger's cat. See the work of Douglas Adams for more information on that; namely, Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency.

In the meantime, I can use the same argument you have in order to assert that "reality is an illusion." In that scenario, there is no possibility of a designer because there is no reality for it to design.

However, stay tuned. Just because the answer may not be discovered in your lifetime is no reason to quit trying. I mean, it seems to me you're taking a mutated form of Pascal's wager and betting against the possibility of anything being real.

reason 2) 'ex nihilo' is a simple & straight forward answer (Occams razor), it has as much proof as any other, because they are all based on faith; one that God created the Universe, the other that Quantum physics can explain the universe & its laws, etc... do you feel strange or charmed yet?

I'm an American. The justice system in this country repeatedly affirms the danger of Occam's Razor.

The weakness comes because not everyone is Sherlock freaking Holmes.

Ex nihilo is not Biblically inherent.

wow, your condescending tone shows your "anger" or "frustration"?

It is a bit frustrating to think that you believe what you're presenting qualifies as either educated or logical:

• are you still Wicca? do you call that logic? - Straw man, or else you haven't been reading my posts unless you're seeking to pick a fight.
• ok, smarty pants, here's a question for you: - Whatever you say, skidmark.
• who or what created the universe? what you say? cosmic egg, big bang? - You only reveal narrow vision and a lack of imagination.
• wrong answer, do you really expect people to believe you, have faith in what can not be empirically tested, seen with our own eyes? what faith you have, in numbers, theories, wishfull thinking - It's a lovely point if you weren't answering your own inventions.
• here's a little Latin for you, "ex nihilo", look up the concept - As near as I can tell, the purpose of your raising ex nihilo has something to do with reasserting your sense of logic. e.g. If there is no immediate question to the answer, just presume one.

by 'weakness' I assume you mean, as opposed to your religion's 'strongness'?

That's a dangerous assumption, Randolfo.

Specifically, I mean that your faith is weak in comparison to what that faith asserts to intend. Of course, that could easily be my problem: I used to think you were a Christian.

did they also say that Jesus uses "Agape" the first 2 times, then uses "Philio " (brotherly love) the last time, to make the point to Peter?

Yes, but in passing. The deeper lesson was reserved for Catholic confirmation students.

by their interactions, I assume that most of Jesus' disciples were bilingual in Aramaic & Greek (like most Romans on that side of the Med) not sure if, Aramaic makes those distinctions, but?

Randolfo, you were complaining earlier about a threadjack. What the hell do you call this? Your point doesn't matter in any way you've communicated. To reiterate:

• What you're too busy sniveling to realize, Randolfo, is the simple fact that I have provided for you a record of someone lying for their faith. That Peter still had the good graces of God within him to make that later stand is only reinforcement of my point.

• Peter made a rejection of Christ, and he was not cast out for that rejection.

You're stalling, trying to run in circles, and wailing "threadjack."

Perhaps you'll get around to making a relevant point soon.

annoying? last time I checked, no one was required to post in a prescribed style, what are you an editor?

How seriously should I take someone who refuses courtesy in communication? I mean, a book and verse citation in parentheses is too much for you to handle ... I don't know what to tell you.

You might wish to consider that other people might choose to read our ramblings. In such a case, it is worth providing minor biblical citations, e.g. (John 21.17). Why? Because maybe some atheist will go look it up and receive the Word. But I understand that in your logical world, taking such a gamble against the odds is even more useless than communicating clearly.

Additionally, given the way you misrepresent the contents of the Bible, it's sometimes tough to follow you when you refer to a given passage because one must translate what it is you actually mean before knowing what you refer to.

So if a minor courtesy is too much for you to handle ... oh, wait ... see? I'm still arguing from that mistaken notion that you're a Christian. Give me a couple days and I'll get used to it.

if anything, I think you need an editor, someone to keep you on track & steer you back form those tangents of yours.

Your suggestion is noted. However, it's not my fault if you have such a narrow view of the world. I mean, look at your complaint of "hijack." Are you really so illiterate as to not be able to follow the discussion you're in, or is it just some dishonest politicking of yours? In other words, are you stupid or just dishonest?

I feel that I may have to moderate the threads I start, so that all these ad hominem , straw man, ad Nauseum attacks can be re-directed.

(chortle!)

if all you want is that, just say so, don't make a federal case out of it

See? Further proof that you have no clue what you're talking about.

Randolfo, I'm happy to spend some time on your issues, but it's helpful and courteous if you're not a cheap, lying, sniveling coward.

as to the main point here about Peter, sorry, Tiassa, but you'll never understand this until you become a Christian

I've long known that one cannot be a Christian unless they forfeit their personal relationship with God and aspire to sheepdom.

You'll never understand until you learn to think, Randolfo.