FamilyLife Forums

Tubalcain:

What you believe about me is not my concern.  That I have continued to show the invalidity of your specious arguments is.

divorce in church:

Tubalcain:

divorce in church:

Also, if you believe that anything and everything stated in the Bible is an opinion.....why do you bother with it at all? If, buried in scripture, there exists no fundamnetal truth, what kind of faith guides you? From where does you moral compass flow? How do you make choices in day to day life?
Are there moral absolutes in your world? If not, how does that function. If so, what are they and where do you get them?
Or is it that everything is an opinion, subject to whims of change if a stronger opinion comes along.

Of course I never said anything of this sort. 

It appears you are confusing fundamentalism with Christianity.

 

Im not confusing anything. I am not surprised that you must bring yet another disparaging term....fundamnetalism....and make that the crux of another point that lacks anything than your own assertion.
Casting about with terms like that....fundamentalism...all that does is call upon the same resource book that atheists and those who simply oppose church things. There is in my opinion nothing wrong with "fundamentalism". Your whole stance assumes that the Bible is flawed and to be taken with a grain of salt...that somehow YOUR intellect is a needed ingredient. That scares me....not that its YOU...but that its ANYONE. I do NOT want you being my guru....KWIM?

This whole fundamnetalism vs Christian thing was something I made use of when I was fleeing God. It created enough cover for me to feel good about myself and somehow appealed enough to my inteelect that I was OK with not believing....even feeling disdainful towards believers.
I don't know where you stand...nor would I dare to judge that....but these things you call on to make your point are pretty tired and cliche.....nothing new there at all, and the beauty of the God of the Bible.....He indeed can take the heat of your doubts and still love you the same.

Your meandering post here is hard to pin down.  It appears to be just another attack and effort to claim I said things which I did not say, which is hardly a moral act on your part. 

It's interesting how fundamentalists object to that term, but it was created by them as the title of series of pamphlets ("The Fundamentals") published in the 1910s to describe their position of topics of doctrine and so on. 

I do not believe there is a conflict between "Fundamentalists and Christians" as the bulk of Fundamentalists in America are Christians.  Recent analysis of political conflict (can't remember from whom) states conflicts between "liberals" and "conservatives" or any other two factions are not specifically conflicts between "good" and "evil" or between "the righteous and sinners" so much as between two groups of sinners.  I think this is true.  While there are evil persons among the conservative/fundamental faction such as Randall Terry and much evil is committed by the right-wing parachruch groups unknowingly and in pursuit of power no doubt the same is true among opposing factions to some degree.  In this thread for instance, the concept President-Elect Obama is either evil or aligned with evil has been ably refuted and shown to be a poor exposition and merely rhetoric.  President Bush is also not "evil" nor is VP Cheney.     

 I have no "doubts" about God, only about the wisdom of political rhetoric of some who claim to be speaking for Him. 

chaz345:

Tubalcain:

What you believe about me is not my concern.  That I have continued to show the invalidity of your specious arguments is.

Simply stating the opinion that someone's argument is nothing more than a whine doesn't invalidate it in the least and that is the sum total of what you have done. Does that sort of "reasoning" work in the courtrooms you supposedly work in?

It depends on what sort of case the lawyer has.  If I had you on a jury and was defending a meth-head burglar I'd expect a hung jury with the other 11 extremely dispeased with you.

Tubalcain:

chaz345:

Tubalcain:

What you believe about me is not my concern.  That I have continued to show the invalidity of your specious arguments is.

Simply stating the opinion that someone's argument is nothing more than a whine doesn't invalidate it in the least and that is the sum total of what you have done. Does that sort of "reasoning" work in the courtrooms you supposedly work in?

It depends on what sort of case the lawyer has.  If I had you on a jury and was defending a meth-head burglar I'd expect a hung jury with the other 11 extremely dispeased with you.

chaz345:

Tubalcain:

chaz345:

Tubalcain:

What you believe about me is not my concern.  That I have continued to show the invalidity of your specious arguments is.

Simply stating the opinion that someone's argument is nothing more than a whine doesn't invalidate it in the least and that is the sum total of what you have done. Does that sort of "reasoning" work in the courtrooms you supposedly work in?

It depends on what sort of case the lawyer has.  If I had you on a jury and was defending a meth-head burglar I'd expect a hung jury with the other 11 extremely dispeased with you.

If you actually managed to create reasonable doubt, through presenting objective facts that called into question the prosecutor's argument, you'd have no problems from me. OTOH, if you, as is the sum total of your participation here, did nothing more than accuse the prosecutor of whining, and presented nothing more than your own opinion, I'm quite certain that the split would be something quite different than 11 to 1.

Yeah, we had a fellow like you once on a panel and he was surprised the other jurors would make him foreman too, but they didn't.  Given your constant sniping and whining you do not come off as a likeable person.  Why not get the chip off your shoulder and stop being such a prig?

Tubalcain:

chaz345:

Tubalcain:

chaz345:

Tubalcain:

What you believe about me is not my concern.  That I have continued to show the invalidity of your specious arguments is.

Simply stating the opinion that someone's argument is nothing more than a whine doesn't invalidate it in the least and that is the sum total of what you have done. Does that sort of "reasoning" work in the courtrooms you supposedly work in?

It depends on what sort of case the lawyer has.  If I had you on a jury and was defending a meth-head burglar I'd expect a hung jury with the other 11 extremely dispeased with you.

If you actually managed to create reasonable doubt, through presenting objective facts that called into question the prosecutor's argument, you'd have no problems from me. OTOH, if you, as is the sum total of your participation here, did nothing more than accuse the prosecutor of whining, and presented nothing more than your own opinion, I'm quite certain that the split would be something quite different than 11 to 1.

Yeah, we had a fellow like you once on a panel and he was surprised the other jurors would make him foreman too, but they didn't.  Given your constant sniping and whining you do not come off as a likeable person.  Why not get the chip off your shoulder and stop being such a prig?

chaz345:

Tubalcain:

chaz345:

Tubalcain:

chaz345:

Tubalcain:

What you believe about me is not my concern.  That I have continued to show the invalidity of your specious arguments is.

Simply stating the opinion that someone's argument is nothing more than a whine doesn't invalidate it in the least and that is the sum total of what you have done. Does that sort of "reasoning" work in the courtrooms you supposedly work in?

It depends on what sort of case the lawyer has.  If I had you on a jury and was defending a meth-head burglar I'd expect a hung jury with the other 11 extremely dispeased with you.

If you actually managed to create reasonable doubt, through presenting objective facts that called into question the prosecutor's argument, you'd have no problems from me. OTOH, if you, as is the sum total of your participation here, did nothing more than accuse the prosecutor of whining, and presented nothing more than your own opinion, I'm quite certain that the split would be something quite different than 11 to 1.

Yeah, we had a fellow like you once on a panel and he was surprised the other jurors would make him foreman too, but they didn't.  Given your constant sniping and whining you do not come off as a likeable person.  Why not get the chip off your shoulder and stop being such a prig?

Why are you even here?  Given your obvious disdain for anything even slighly right of center and even slightly fundamental in terms of Biblical views, what purpose do you hope to accomplish by being here?  You quite obviously have zero interest in understanding differeing viewpoints since you have obviously decided for yourself what anyone who disagrees with you in the least means.

Thank you for making my point for me.

Tubalcain:

chaz345:

Tubalcain:

chaz345:

Tubalcain:

chaz345:

Tubalcain:

What you believe about me is not my concern.  That I have continued to show the invalidity of your specious arguments is.

Simply stating the opinion that someone's argument is nothing more than a whine doesn't invalidate it in the least and that is the sum total of what you have done. Does that sort of "reasoning" work in the courtrooms you supposedly work in?

It depends on what sort of case the lawyer has.  If I had you on a jury and was defending a meth-head burglar I'd expect a hung jury with the other 11 extremely dispeased with you.

If you actually managed to create reasonable doubt, through presenting objective facts that called into question the prosecutor's argument, you'd have no problems from me. OTOH, if you, as is the sum total of your participation here, did nothing more than accuse the prosecutor of whining, and presented nothing more than your own opinion, I'm quite certain that the split would be something quite different than 11 to 1.

Yeah, we had a fellow like you once on a panel and he was surprised the other jurors would make him foreman too, but they didn't.  Given your constant sniping and whining you do not come off as a likeable person.  Why not get the chip off your shoulder and stop being such a prig?

Why are you even here?  Given your obvious disdain for anything even slighly right of center and even slightly fundamental in terms of Biblical views, what purpose do you hope to accomplish by being here?  You quite obviously have zero interest in understanding differeing viewpoints since you have obviously decided for yourself what anyone who disagrees with you in the least means.

Thank you for making my point for me.

Chaz,

You have clearly won this debate with Tub...now the best thing to do is not respond to her any longer. 

chaz345:

Tubalcain:

chaz345:

Tubalcain:

chaz345:

Tubalcain:

chaz345:

Tubalcain:

What you believe about me is not my concern.  That I have continued to show the invalidity of your specious arguments is.

Simply stating the opinion that someone's argument is nothing more than a whine doesn't invalidate it in the least and that is the sum total of what you have done. Does that sort of "reasoning" work in the courtrooms you supposedly work in?

It depends on what sort of case the lawyer has.  If I had you on a jury and was defending a meth-head burglar I'd expect a hung jury with the other 11 extremely dispeased with you.

If you actually managed to create reasonable doubt, through presenting objective facts that called into question the prosecutor's argument, you'd have no problems from me. OTOH, if you, as is the sum total of your participation here, did nothing more than accuse the prosecutor of whining, and presented nothing more than your own opinion, I'm quite certain that the split would be something quite different than 11 to 1.

Yeah, we had a fellow like you once on a panel and he was surprised the other jurors would make him foreman too, but they didn't.  Given your constant sniping and whining you do not come off as a likeable person.  Why not get the chip off your shoulder and stop being such a prig?

Why are you even here?  Given your obvious disdain for anything even slighly right of center and even slightly fundamental in terms of Biblical views, what purpose do you hope to accomplish by being here?  You quite obviously have zero interest in understanding differeing viewpoints since you have obviously decided for yourself what anyone who disagrees with you in the least means.

Thank you for making my point for me.

What point, you still haven't made one, you've only managed to whine about the behavior of somoene else.

You're describing your own actions there, LOL.

TD&H:

Chaz,

You have clearly won this debate with Tub...now the best thing to do is not respond to her any longer. 

It would be just fine if neither of you did, as both of you have shown an unwillingness to act appropriately.  If you think I am insulted by your misstating my gender, you are mistaken.  All I see in that is the pathetic nature of your responses. 

Tubalcain:

TD&H:

Chaz,

You have clearly won this debate with Tub...now the best thing to do is not respond to her any longer. 

It would be just fine if neither of you did, as both of you have shown an unwillingness to act appropriately.  If you think I am insulted by your misstating my gender, you are mistaken.  All I see in that is the pathetic nature of your responses. 

chaz345:

Tubalcain:

TD&H:

Chaz,

You have clearly won this debate with Tub...now the best thing to do is not respond to her any longer. 

It would be just fine if neither of you did, as both of you have shown an unwillingness to act appropriately.  If you think I am insulted by your misstating my gender, you are mistaken.  All I see in that is the pathetic nature of your responses. 

So why do you think I'm insulted by your references to my height? If what we do is pathetic, that ins't you doing something almost identical in nature equally pathetic?

MAYBE.  I'm just playing the game the way you do. 

Tubalcain:

chaz345:

Tubalcain:

TD&H:

Chaz,

You have clearly won this debate with Tub...now the best thing to do is not respond to her any longer. 

It would be just fine if neither of you did, as both of you have shown an unwillingness to act appropriately.  If you think I am insulted by your misstating my gender, you are mistaken.  All I see in that is the pathetic nature of your responses. 

So why do you think I'm insulted by your references to my height? If what we do is pathetic, that ins't you doing something almost identical in nature equally pathetic?

MAYBE.  I'm just playing the game the way you do.