26 Jan 13
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThis post has no relevance to the previous conversation. I have no interest in making a case for the existence or otherwise of god and have at no time (in said conversation) given an opinion either way.
If you can cite evidence for the proposition that God does not exist then please do so, if not then there is logically no basis for concluding that the proposition is sound. Its a mere opinion, unsubstantiated and without the slightest foundation. Surely any open minded and rational person will consider any evidence prior to making an evaluation with the mind?
26 Jan 13
1 edit
Originally posted by avalanchethecathere are your words again,
This post has no relevance to the previous conversation. I have no interest in making a case for the existence or otherwise of god and have at no time (in said conversation) given an opinion either way.
As to the rest of your post, are you trying to tell me that you are open to the idea that the god you profess to believe in might not exist? Because if you're not saying that, then you are, by definition, closed-minded
I asked for evidence not only remaining open to the idea but completely willing to consider anything that you might have. If a consideration of evidence is now being construed as close minded, then you have a point, but its not, is it, for i am perfectly willing to discuss any evidence that you have.
26 Jan 13
Originally posted by RJHinds
Maybe it was not in as unambiguous language as you thought, if I did not comprehend it. Don't you think you could state it in such a way that even a redneck like myself would understand that you did not intend to attack the person, but an act associated with homosexuality? 😏
26 Jan 13
Originally posted by RJHindsWhat do you mean by "natural" and "unnatural"? A few weeks ago you made the peculiar declaration that autism is "unnatural". So it's not clear if you understand the term "natural". Nor is it clear how you are using it here to talk about homosexuals.
Homosexuals are just as natural as you and I. I should know because my youngest son is homosexual. I don't see anything unnatural about him, unless you consider having a genius IQ as unnatural.
Originally posted by avalanchethecatrobbie, who for so long did - almost single-handedly - more than any other poster to bring the Clans Forum ethos to the Spirituality Forum, appears to be now setting out a new M.O. where each and every little disagreement is branded an attack on his "personality". It will be interesting to see how this pans out. 😀
I'm sorry, where did I refer to your personality?
26 Jan 13
Originally posted by FMFIf I did, then I am guilty of the same flaw. I don't recall the context, but I guess I should have said not normal in that case, too. It may be a defect that occurs in nature, but it is still natural because that is what happens in nature today. Autism is not something that is desired to be the normal state for us, even though some must live with it.
What do you mean by "natural" and "unnatural"? A few weeks ago you made the peculiar declaration that autism is "unnatural". So it's not clear if you understand the term "natural". Nor is it clear how you are using it here to talk about homosexuals.
26 Jan 13
Originally posted by RJHindsAs I recall you said autism is not natural. And you gave this link http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0002494/ to 'back up' the assertion. And when I said that there was nothing whatsoever at the link you provided to back up your claim that autism is "not natural", you replied something along the lines of "Okay, you can believe it is natural if you wish. Why should I worry?" So it was not a slip of the tongue on your part. I put it to you that you were wrong, and you had a moment to consider it, but you came out saying autism is not natural. And now, because that is inconvenient for you as you talk about your son and homosexuality, you have changed your tune about what "not natural" means, is that how it works?
If I did, then I am guilty of the same flaw. I don't recall the context, but I guess I should have said not normal in that case, too. It may be a defect that occurs in nature, but it is still natural because that is what happens in nature today. Autism is not something that is desired to be the normal state for us, even though some must live with it.
26 Jan 13
Originally posted by FMFOkay, perhaps you caught me weak moment at which time I was not thinking clearly and used the wrong term. But now I have set the record straight as to what I believe now.
As I recall you said autism is not natural. And you gave this link http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0002494/ to 'back up' the assertion. And when I said that there was nothing whatsoever at the link you provided to back up your claim that autism is "not natural", you replied something along the lines of "Okay, you can believe it is natural if you wish ...[text shortened]... uality, you have changed your tune about what "not natural" means, is that how it works?
26 Jan 13
3 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsFunny that you should cite Mosaic Law to justify your position on the death penalty for murderers, but skip over the same bits on homosexuality.
Homosexuals are just as natural as you and I. I should know because my youngest son is homosexual. I don't see anything unnatural about him, unless you consider having a genius IQ as unnatural.
You wouldn't be picking and choosing from the Bible to fit your personal beliefs and circumstances, would you?
If you had a daughter, and she had an abortion, I wonder if your belief that all women who have abortions should be executed might undergo a similar piece of selective reinterpretation?
26 Jan 13
1 edit
Originally posted by Rank outsiderYou must remember that RJHinds is a troll not a real person, real Christian nor a real chess player.
Funny that you should cite Mosaic Law to justify your position on the death penalty for murderers, but skip over the same bits on homosexuality. You wouldn't be picking and choosing from the Bible to fit your personal beliefs and circumstances, would you?
Every time his notoriety here dies down a bit he either beats one of the top rated chess players using his chess engine to create some everyone look at me swirl, or he dramas up some new religious aspect of controversy to somehow add a level of depth and interest to the the tiresome, one dimensional caricature the identity RJHinds has become.
26 Jan 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAll of which is entirely separate from the points we were discussing. If you seriously wish to discuss the fundamental flaws in your belief edifice, we can have a bash at that in a new thread, but you have now wriggled so far from the meat here that I've decided to abandon the thread.
here are your words again,
As to the rest of your post, are you trying to tell me that you are open to the idea that the god you profess to believe in might not exist? Because if you're not saying that, then you are, by definition, closed-minded
I asked for evidence not only remaining open to the idea but completely willing to consider anythin ...[text shortened]... a point, but its not, is it, for i am perfectly willing to discuss any evidence that you have.
26 Jan 13
1 edit
Originally posted by avalanchethecatPerhaps you will now go and do something more profitable instead. I myself, have no need to bash anything, I have no issues.
All of which is entirely separate from the points we were discussing. If you seriously wish to discuss the fundamental flaws in your belief edifice, we can have a bash at that in a new thread, but you have now wriggled so far from the meat here that I've decided to abandon the thread.