Homosexuality v. Christianity -- A FEW QUESTIONS:

Quote:

There's no point in pursuing the King Kong example if you contend that God is infallible.

Funny way of making an argument. I'm not asserting anything about the nature of God (theology). We're just checking if two different stories are analogous or not (exegesis).

You asserted that there was a parallel between the King Kong story and the Adam and Eve story. And the parallel was that, in your view, both the villagers and God made a mistake.

I've asserted that if we carefully analize both stories, there's no parallel at all. The villagers' mistake is not analogous to anything done or said by God in the Adam & Eve story.

You've been unable to show your "parallel"... you just repeat ad nauseam that there is one.

Quote:

If that is the case, then there is no parallel.

Of course there's no parallel. Not because I'm introducing any theological notions of God, but because the stories are not comparable point by point.

Quote:

So first you need to establish, by answering my question, whether there is any basis for a comparison, and then I'll take up the King Kong example again.

You're funny, man! I'm not the one who wanted to compare both stories. You're the one who brought King Kong to this forum. Hence, you're the one who needs to "establish whether there is any basis for a comparison" or not. I say there isn't, for there are elements that do not translate from one story to the other. You say there is. Tell us how so.

Quote:

On the other hand, if you're simply unable or unwilling to answer my question, you should make that clear.

If you're simply unable or unwilling to show the parallel between both stories, then don't bring the King Kong tale to this thread.

:wink:

0 Replies

An ad hominen argument is quite a different thing. But don't worry: the crowd has welcomed you to their ranks. They won't notice your own contradictions and name-calling.

An applause to whomever opposes Maliagar!!!

Laughing

(especially by those who're unable to defend their phobias themselves...)

Cephus wrote:

Cephus wrote:
maybe all those repressed Catholics had better stop playing with themselves.

Ah yes, ad hominem attacks. The last bastion of the lost argument.
We're glad to know you're giving up.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Actually, he admitted that God "took a risk" in placing the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the middle of Eden.

Still stuck with the word "risk"? Can you explain to us in what sense taking a risk is the same as making a mistake?

Quote:

serious implications for Maliagar's position.

Please open our eyes to those life-changing implications...

Quote:

...now he is in such a logical corner...

Am I? Please explain how... I'm slow, you know.

Quote:

...he has decided the only way to save himself is to refuse to answer one very simple question: "can God ever make a mistake?"

I think you're trying to save yourself by avoiding your original point: The parallel between the King Kong story and the Adam and Eve story, and your claim that in the Genesis story God made a mistake. I told you: Deal with these exegetical issues satisfactorily, and we can move to other issues.

Now, you can always choose not to deal with them, and blame me. That's been a common practice around here, and I'm already used to it. :wink:

Quote:

Really, what kind of devout Christian would hesitate to provide an answer to that question?

What kind of devout rational secularist would claim a demonstrable analogy between two stories and then fail to prove the parallel?

:wink:

0 Replies

maliagar, BUT there is a parallel; both are fictional characters.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

maliagar, BUT there is a parallel; both are fictional characters.

Are you for real?

Maybe you're also parallel (with the villagers)... after all, you've made plenty of mistakes in this thread.

:wink:

0 Replies

Unlike you, maliagar, I'd be the first to admit my own mistakes.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Unlike you, maliagar, I'd be the first to admit my own mistakes.

I haven't heard ANY admissions from you... just appeals to others to help you uphold your prejudices.

So don't claim any moral superiority around here...

:wink:

0 Replies

Me claim "Moral superiority?" Holy cow, you have imagination too! Wink

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Me claim "Moral superiority?" Holy cow, you have imagination too!

That's what you just did ("I do what's right, while you don't").

Was it another mistake?

:wink:

0 Replies

Links, please.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Links, please.

Some of us are so used to bringing evidence, that it takes us a minute to get it. Here it is:

cicerone imposter wrote:

Unlike you, maliagar, I'd be the first to admit my own mistakes.

Now, if this is not a claim to moral superiority...

...my mistake. :wink:

Cool

0 Replies

maliagar, Links please. Diversions are unnecessary. Just provide the link.

0 Replies

:wink:

I had forgotten how punctilliously careful you are when it comes to bringing evidence and support for the things you say...

cicerone imposter wrote:

maliagar, Links please. Diversions are unnecessary. Just provide the link.

Sorry, but I can do both things: Provide the evidence, and have a lot of fun while doing it. [Fun, for me, is absolutely necessary...]

0 Replies

You're one against how many of us having fun at your ego? Wink

0 Replies

hair shirts shed, comb-over often needed

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

You're one against how many of us having fun at your ego?

I know, I know. "Group think", it is called.

A couple of authority figures, and a few others who can only find refuge under the wings of the crowd.

:wink:

0 Replies

maliagar, We are not a 'crowd.' Many of us even live in different continents. It's just that your inability to provide proof for your staided opinions on the subject you claim to have knowledge is being disputed by all. We are not "group think" or "group talk." It's you who cannot see what is obvious to most of us; you have the ability to see things that doesn't exist.

0 Replies

Then, don't waste your precious time with my postings...

Let your trusted heavy weights destroy my views...

They should do it in a second, and move on... right?

[In God's time, "one second" may be... four weeks so far? Laughing

]

:wink:

cicerone imposter wrote:

maliagar, We are not a 'crowd.' Many of us even live in different continents. It's just that your inability to provide proof for your staided opinions on the subject you claim to have knowledge is being disputed by all. We are not "group think" or "group talk." It's you who cannot see what is obvious to most of us; you have the ability to see things that doesn't exist.

0 Replies

maliagar, I can determine for myself whether I'm wasting my time. You wouldn't deny me my daily entertainment would you?

0 Replies

Frank has already succeeding in destroying your religious philosophy, because you have never answered his question that he has repeated several times. Your tact to ignore it will not give you a free pass.

0 Replies

Homosexuality v. Christianity -- A FEW QUESTIONS:

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know