@Frank Apisa,
I'll post right here. I'm no christian, so i don't turn the other cheek. If you insult me, you'll get it back in spades.
This is a typical Frank exercise in christian-bating. Despite your silly claims of moral and intellectual superiority because of your agnosticism, you cannot refrain from attempting to jerk the christian chain. But your rhetorical skills are so paltry, that contemplating what passes for logic at your house makes me laugh until my belly hurts.
So, for example, let's examine your witless signature line:
Quote:To acknowledge what you do not know is a display of strength. To pretend you know what you truly dont [sic] is a display of weakness.
If you are referring to atheists and theists, who you always rather stupidly lump together as two sides of one coin, then this is, or ought to be, embarrassingly idiotic. If the theist say there is a god, and you claim they are pretending to know what they truly don't, that could only be because
you know that there is no god. Conversely, if an atheist says that there is no god, and you assert they are pretending to know what they don't know, that could only be because
you know that there is a god. Intellectually, that choice bit of stupdity paints you into a rhetocical corner. That also doesn't surprise me, because logic and intelligent argument have never been your strong stuit. I expect that your response to this post will be more schoolyard insults, with no attempt to defend your position.
More specifically, in this thread, you inferentially assert that Jesus existed, and you inferentially claim to know that he never condemned slavery. So you are, by your own criterion, displaying weakness by pretending to know what you don't in fact know. Of course, you could prove me wrong by presenting iron-clad evidence that Jesus existed, and then by providing iron-clad evidence that you
know he never condemned slavery. I'm not holding my breath.