kate4christ03 wrote:Quote:No, that is an intentional warping of what i have consistently written. I have continually asserted that if you cannot demonstrate that your "god" exists, the only reasonable assumption is that this "god" is a figment of your imagination, and therefore, i refer to your imaginary friend. I don't assert that there is a "god" of any description, imaginary or otherwise. I simply point out that your "god" constitutes a figment of your imagination unless and until you can provide plausible evidence for your god--something which you simply don't do, and a challenge which you consistently avoid. Smart move on your part--i've know people who are
apparently a good deal more intelligent and mentally adroit than you who have been unable to do so.
once more....so you can read it again....
Quote: I simply point out that your "god" constitutes a figment of your imagination unless and until you can provide plausible evidence for your god--something which you simply don't do, and a challenge which you consistently avoid.
you have never challenged me nor has anyone else so i cant consistently avoid what has never happened......you first brought this up when i said you have beliefs also...and used your phrase to prove a point(this was a post you made not to me but to another member on another thread) i never said you told me specifically that God is imaginery...i was using this as an example of your beliefs...i wasnt entering into a debate on the existence or trying to give you proof that God exists.....
That's a good thing, since rejecting your contention that a "god" exists is not a statement of belief on my part. Saying that as you have provided no evidence for your "god," your "god" can be considered a figment of your imagination is also not a belief, it is a statment of a logical conclusion. See, here's how it works: Kate said she believes in "god," but she has provided no evidence that there is a "god" . . . hmmm . . . must be a figment of her imagination. I'd better defer the contention unless and until she provides proof.
I have not stated that your "god" is imaginary, i have referred to your "god" as your imaginary friend, becuase you provide no plausible reason to assume that your "god"
is anything.
As for a challenge, i have pointed out that i have never claimed to have challenged you directly, but i have also pointed out that the challenge is inferential. I cannot be faulted for your inability to understand that.
Quote:Quote:Any attempt to state categorically that one's personal exegesis is unquestionably the "truth" qualifies as "goofy exegesis," because it has not (and likely cannot) be demonstrated. And that is entirely by internal scriptural reference, your case deteriorates even further when the plausibilty of scripture as evidence of fact is assessed from outside the exegetical exercise.
once again when have i given a personal exegesis on scripture saying it was the absolute truth......
I would have thought by now that you'd have realized that i'm not going to play that game with you. I have seen you do this time and time again, i have no need to, nor am i obliged to prove it to you.
Quote:katewrote
Quote:
the posts speak for themselves...you said you hoped you were being seen as rude (when speaking to me)bc whacko religious knowitalls disgust you......it may have been indirect but it was still pointed at me...
setanta wrote
Quote:Here's a crying towell--get over it. Once again, if the shoe fits . . .
when i pointed out you call names you first denied it then when i gave proof to that name calling you say Get over it.....its fruitless to debate with you if you keep changing your tune.......
No, my "tune" has not changed. If i refer to whacko religious know-it-alls, and you take offense, one can only conclude that you consider that a reasonable description of yourself. It's not name-calling if it's true.
Quote:Quote:Setanta wrote:
kate4christ03 wrote:
setanta why not scroll up and read the next post i made to his remark that i read the links........i couldnt get into the links at that time and was just basing my post on what i knew.......no assumption was necessary.......a simply posed question would have been enough.....and furthermore those links that i was able to get in later,in no way answered my initial question..except to shed some light on the church of nazarene today...it was neo that later answered my question as to their possible link with that of the nazarites of the bible...and he did it without any assumptions or condescension...
The Big Bird responded to your initial post without assumption or condescension. It appears to me that all that is going on here is that you can't handle criticism well, and are unwilling to publicly admit your ignorance.
It has only been as you have become progressively more accusatory, and made a continuing practice of misrepresenting what i have said that i have descended to your level to return the accusations and sneers. You have no one to thank but yourself for this state of affairs. I've seen you in actrion around here for a long time, but have generally not commented on what you post, because i find your drivel distasteful. In this thread, i only addressed you to point out that the Big Bird had not addressed you in a condescending manner, and that you were mistaken. I addressed you politely--and your responded with increasing hysteria and misrepresentation. Finally, i lost patience with you, and determined to treat you exactly as you were feebling attempting to treat other in this thread. Hope you're enjoying it.
i wasnt accusatory in my post nor did i sneer. nor did i get hysterical ...the post is evident.....
You have so badly butchered this series of quotes and responses that it isn't worth the effort to attempt to decipher how you have chosen to edit what i wrote, and interpolate it with what you wrote.
Suffice it to say that i've quoted my first three posts, two of which were addressed to you, both of those which were courteous and factual with regard to a description of what the Big Bird had posted. You have progressively become more accusatory and defensive. You are personally responsible for the deterioration of the exchanges between us, because i began with a courteous tone, to which you responded irrationally.
If you are going to quote me, i would appreciate it if you did not mix portions of one post of mine with portions of another, and combine them with portions of your own posts or comments--that constitutes a form of lying, because anyone reading here would think that the resultant incoherence were a product of my writing, rather than your dishonest editing job.
Quote:Quote:When i finally did point out that you spout scripture and mock others who don't agree with you, it was after having attempted to address you courteously--to no purpose. I did not say that this is "all you do," but i did point out that it is habitual with you, and that it has come to characterize your "contribution" in my estimation.
you keep saying this and produce no evidence ...I have asked repeatedly for proof to your accusations.....i am getting tired of asking for proof and not seeing any......i wont even address this anymore bc its evident you have no proof.........
I could think of few things which i would appreciate more than that you abandon your hysteria, and stop butchering my posts to attempt to show what a poor, martyred victim you are.
