RexRed wrote:If you have never heard of the terms Christ-in's then your knowledge of the word Christian is flawed.
As i said, you just make this **** up as you go along. But then, you follow it with this ! ! !
Quote:This is evident when theologians have their dogma push them into a corner they come up with wild fanciful ideas.
Irony is not dead, it simply goes unrecognized by those who produce it.
Quote:Therefore Paul must have come after he wrote this. He just jettisoned back in time. HOGWASH!
This not even remotely related to anything which i have written. (Do you actually know what the verb "to jettison" means? It's a transitive verb, Bubba, and as you use it here, it has no object--more incoherence.)
Quote:How about if you take the document FIRST on what it actually says about itself?
Ever heard of circular "reasoning?"
Quote:Then continue the logic on from there? How about giving the document even a slight bit of credibility?
There has to be a logical basis from which to proceed. You have not provided any logical basis for an assumption that scripture is divinely inspired and inerrant. No document can ever have any more credibility than it lends itself, and outside the context of the contemporary world in which it was produced.
Quote:BTY I will probably write many more sentence fragments before all is said and done.
I expect no less.
Quote:Many of my fragmented sentences contain more thought than generality.
Sentence fragments are not necessarily the same as fragmented sentences. Your sentence fragments are not followed by other, explanatory or justifying fragments. They are simply incoherent ramblings. Thought is the about the last thing which is evinced in the sentence fragments you produce. This last quoted sentence is not a fragment, nor is it coherent.