2 edits
-Removed-Sooo, after months of him blithering on and on you wanted him to do what... to continue blithering on and on? But then you say it's a good thing to not hear it anymore.
( pregnant pause )
You seem to be a bit confused, or perhaps conflicted. But this may be a good thing... it indicates the possibility (however slight) that a small glimmer of light may have penetrated several layers of dank dark dense fog and lit up a small corner somewhere deep down within the putrid mudpit morasses of your mindscape.
1 edit
Originally posted by lemon limeYou seem to think this thread is all about abortion when it's not. Maybe you are getting confused with Thread 171626.
Trump?
Oh, that's right, this thread is all about Trump... what in the world was I thinking?
The "murdering children" notion here stems from Fetchmyjunk defending genocide on another thread where the Hebrews supposedly were not morally unsound to murder children because they later wrote an account of it in which they claimed their god figure had told them he wanted them to do it.
Originally posted by sonshipHuman wisdom is indeed limited, but it does not follow God's wisdom is therefore not limited. After all, it is man who has endowed Him with omniscience.
The difficulty demonstrates that human wisdom is limited. It does not follow that God's wisdom is limited.
Take for example my view of my father when I was a child. - My father knew everything and was the most powerful person in the world. But this hero worship didn't change the fact he was neither all wise or all powerful. Far from it.
Originally posted by FMFOh, so you mean to say this is what divegasser was alluding to?
You seem to think this thread is all about abortion when it's not. Maybe you are getting confused with Thread 171626.
The "murdering children" notion here stems from Fetchmyjunk defending genocide on another thread where the Hebrews supposedly were not morally unsound to murder children because they later wrote an account of it in which they claimed their god figure had told them he wanted them to do it.
So I was right, he was alluding to some OT passages!
I must be some kinda mindreader or sumptin like dat dontcha know...
(dontcha know?)
Explaining the obvious isn't necessary, or particularly interesting, but thanks anyway for trying.
You deserve an award for Meritorious Trying.
Originally posted by lemon limeHe pointed out that you'd got the wrong end of the stick early on but you blundered on about abortion regardless. There is an ongoing thread about that.
Oh, so you mean to say this is what divegasser was alluding to?
So I was right, he [b]was alluding to some OT passages!
I must be some kinda mindreader or sumptin like dat dontcha know...
(dontcha know?)
Explaining the obvious isn't necessary, or particularly interesting, but thanks anyway for trying.
You deserve an award for Meritorious Trying.[/b]
1 edit
-Removed-No. I don't think this is the case. And I don't think that is what my post said.
But I agree with Fetchmyjunk that you should be sure that you clearly respond to questions asked of you, if you want to hold others' feet to the fire of examination.
Should we start a thread "@divegeester" in reciprocation underlying some of your aggravating methods of discussion as well ?
1 edit
Originally posted by sonshipI suppose the fact you've never reprimanded Fetchmyjunk for the incessant way he doesn't answer questions, doesn't answer his own questions, and completely ignores what people say in discussions, can be put down to some kind of loyalty/partisanship on your part and the fact that it makes you seem rather casually dishonest yourself is just the price you are willing to pay.
But I agree with Fetchmyjunk that you should be sure that you clearly respond to questions asked of you, if you want to hold others' feet to the fire of examination.