| Jump to bottom |
Hugh Burnett, London, uk UK
Hugh, your 1:52 PM
Certainly with today's technology you can do better than some uneducated sheep herders did 2000 years ago........
Give an account of yourself, Hugh. You must be able to do it. You remember the question........
What were you wearing when you wrote your Fri. 11/06/09 01:53 PM Post?
Prove It !
C'mon Hugie. You were there. You wore the clothes. You were communicating 'World Wide' at the time. You are still alive. (we assume) You have all of the facts in this situation and for some reason you cannot even prove that you were wearing clothes when you wrote your post.
You can do better, Hugh. Man-up. Take charge. Prove It ?
Hugh Burnett, London, uk UK
Hey Hugh,
What were you wearing when you wrote your Fri. 11/06/09 01:53 PM Post?
Prove It !
C'mon Hugie. You were there. You wore the clothes. You were communicating 'World Wide' at the time. You have all of the facts in this situation and for some reason you cannot even prove that you were wearing clothes when you wrote your post.
You can do better, Hugh. Man-up. Take charge. Prove It ?
Hugh Burnett, London, uk UK
Maybe Hugh was naked, with a flower in his hair ( on his way to San Fransisco.)
Are you a gardener, Hugh.
Hugh Burnett, London, uk UK
Hugh, Your 6:47 AM
That is not what I said. I tried to carry on an adult conversation with you and your last two posts show me that is not probably going to happen. At least we tried.
Hugh Burnett, London, uk UK
Hugh, your 3:10 AM
If you adhere to the doctrine of a group who believes that 4+4=8 ; it would be wrong of me to to say that 'your group says 4+4=7 and that you are wrong to believe that your group says 4+4=8'.
I am free to argue that 4+4=7. I am not free to tell you or anyone what you and your group profess.
Hugh Burnett, London, uk UK
rightstermeister, Your 9:31 PM
I am not sure that what you said is what I said. I am saying that a non believer in Christianity and the doctrine developed from the Bible is not qualified to critique how well I understand the tenets of the Christian faith which I accept and follow.
If you are pointing out that I cannot properly critique how well a Muslim is following their specific Muslim faith as it pertains to the correct Muslim teachings then we agree. I am not saying that no one can judge my beliefs or disagree with me. My beliefs are fair game for anyone to challenge. (Why they would question my understanding of anything is puzzling ...... :-)
Hugh Burnett, London, uk UK
Dillon:
A person who is a non believer in Christ and Christianity is not equipped to render a qualified critique of my faith, beliefs and confessions as they aline with The Bible, which I accept as God's word.
Well said as long as you apply that rule to all believers of other religions, equally. The historical problem arises when the believers of this or that book or religion, don't afford the same consideration to others.
Hugh Burnett, London, uk UK
Hugh, Your 3:58 PM
You wrote of me: "If your perception of what Christianity is asserting is flawed in some respects then your conclusions about assertions of faith may be flawed also."
Hugh, I will gladly receive and examine any critique of my faith, beliefs and confessions as they aline with The Bible, which I accept as God's word. A person who is a non believer in Christ and Christianity is not equipped to render a qualified critique of my faith, beliefs and confessions as they aline with The Bible, which I accept as God's word.
Hugh Burnett, London, uk UK
Hugh 1:42 PM
Hugh, I did google this a week ago or so. Dr. Sagan is making a very important statement with this analogy. I enjoyed reading it and considering what he is saying.
The person who constructs and asserts any analogy bears the responsibility for presenting both sides of the analogy accurately. Dr. Sagan's understanding of the questions from the person who is asked to come and see the dragon seem to represent his perspective and experience. What is at question for me is that which is being presented concerning Christianity; if Christianity is what Dr. Sagan is addressing.
Many non believers, including some on this forum, consider their understanding of what Christianity asserts allows them to state how the tenets of our faith are to be understood and accepted. This position is not valid in all instances. That is why I am asking what specific of Christianity MacBadger is inserting into his analogy use of "The Dragon in The Garage". If MacBadger's perception of what Christianity is asserting is flawed in some respects then his conclusions about our assertions of faith may be flawed also. I am simply asking that all the cards be placed face up on the table and the book of Hoyle readily at hand for reference.
Hugh Burnett, London, uk UK
Hugh, 8:19 AM
I can hear the conviction in your words. You seem comfortable with your conclusion.
Hugh Burnett, London, uk UK
Hugh: Your 5:34 A.M.
Hugh: "To clarify, you have acknowledged at last that this claim from the so-called Divinely inspired Bible is apocryphal, beguiling, bogus, casuistic, concocted, contrary to fact, cooked-up, counterfactual, deceitful, deceiving, delusive, dishonest, distorted, erroneous, ersatz, fake, fallacious, fanciful, faulty, fictitious, fishy, fraudulent, illusive, imaginary, improper, inaccurate, incorrect, inexact, invalid, lying, mendacious, misleading, misrepresentative, mistaken, off the mark, phony, sham, sophistical, specious, spurious, trumped up, unfounded, unreal, unsound, untrue, untruthful and does not contain an iota of truth."
So then, are you saying that you do not believe this?
I only ask because you seem to be vacillating in your post:)
| Jump to top |
