ChristianForums banned Christ.

[Mustard Seed]

Self-deception (like bearing one's testimony when one cannot give a reasoned answer) is not refutation

Which was precisely my point against no avatar's claim that I've not refuted anything. I've not used my testimony on this thread to refute any point. I've used the weakness in his initial assertions to stand as refutation.

We are all guilty of stating or assuming things without backing them up systematically.

To discern anything at all, or have any attempt at intellegent productive exchange there must be things that are assumed to be a certain way. The assumption is not the crime. It's the refusal to acknowledge such that is the infraction 'gainst logic and rational. Things like applying one means of measure to a faith outside your own and then applying a different measure to your own faith and it's tenants. That is the very crime Israel was so often chatised for commiting, that is some would have two different measurement tools that they would switch of in use to be to there advantage, whether that constituted measuring short or long of the true measurement. Things such as presupositionalist craziness or the mere reference to science when it appears to benefit your assertions but ignoring it when applied to your own theology.

I have not felt MS has refuted biblical evidence in the past.

That is because of the assumptions you are guilty of holding without backing them up.

 

[no avatar]

I've refuted your claim that we're trying to take over the world by means other than those advocated by Christ, the very One who stated that the "meek...shall inherit the earth."

No, you didn't. You didn't show any evidence of anything. All you did was diss my evidence.

I also refuted your claim that the paper you'd referenced was supported by our church. With that refutation I just refuted the above claim that I haven't refuted anything. You just keep telling yourself that. You're good at self deception.

You showed that the journal was not published by your church. That is all. You did not disprove the evidence I posted. That is how you refute something, BTW. You supply alternate evidence. I am still waiting.

 

[Mustard Seed]

No, you didn't. You didn't show any evidence of anything. All you did was diss my evidence.

Again you seem absolutely confused by the idea that the nullification of the relevancy of your evidence, is a refutation of it as pertaining to the conclusions you reach, even if the only 'evidence' I offered was the effective 'dissing' of the logic that was suppose to bind your evidence together into your overarching claims. In otherwords, to demonstrate a flawed system of logic demands nothing beyond showing where the flaw, in the logic, exists. Nothing beyond this illumination is needed to take down an argument supported by a flawed logical paradigm.

You showed that the journal was not published by your church. That is all. You did not disprove the evidence I posted. That is how you refute something, BTW. You supply alternate evidence. I am still waiting.

I never needed to disprove the evidence you posted because it was not the evidence I took issue with. It was the conclusions, and the adjoining logic you applied, that was in error. Beyond the demonstration of the deficiency of such I need no further evidence than what was provided by you.

 

[oftenbuzzard]

Again you seem absolutely confused by the idea that the nullification of the relevancy of your evidence, is a refutation of it as pertaining to the conclusions you reach, even if the only 'evidence' I offered was the effective 'dissing' of the logic that was suppose to bind your evidence together into your overarching claims. .

Man, that is authentic...

CYBER-GIBBERISH

 

[Mustard Seed]

Man, that is authentic...

CYBER-GIBBERISH

Truely spoken as the verbaly ignorant person you are. The words I spoke have no connection to computers. So the attempted slam of "CYBER-GIBBERISH" merely shows both your ignorance and laziness with regard to actualy discovering the meaning of words for yourself. Try looking up "cyber" in the dictionary then come back and explain to me how my statement has any relation to computers or their language. It seems to me you are the one closer to a simple on and off binary base of communication rather than attempting any complicated code of communication like ENGLISH or any of the written languages developed by men or given from God.

You make this too easy.

 

[oftenbuzzard]

Truely spoken as the verbaly ignorant person you are. The words I spoke have no connection to computers.

So, you merely spoke and words appeared in this forum on the worldwide web?

In no way was a computer involved in producing that result?

If I believed that...

I'd have to also be dumb enough to wear magical underwear and call teenie boys on bikes... "ELDER."

 

[fiducia]

So, you merely spoke and words appeared in this forum on the worldwide web?

In no way was a computer involved in producing that result?

If I believed that...

I'd have to also be dumb enough to wear magical underwear and call teenie boys on bikes... "ELDER."

:rotfl:

 

[death2impiety]

Mustard seed is such an ELDER...

I don't get this "elder" business, but it made me laugh anyway

 

[no avatar]

So, you merely spoke and words appeared in this forum on the worldwide web?

In no way was a computer involved in producing that result?

If I believed that...

I'd have to also be dumb enough to wear magical underwear and call teenie boys on bikes... "ELDER."

Maybe it is like the peep stone. The words just magically appeared when he thought of them.

 

[godrulz]

Mustard seed is such an ELDER...

I don't get this "elder" business, but it made me laugh anyway

18 year old Mormon missionary 'elders' are an oxymormon...er oxymoron...

 

[no avatar]

Again you seem absolutely confused by the idea that the nullification of the relevancy of your evidence, is a refutation of it as pertaining to the conclusions you reach, even if the only 'evidence' I offered was the effective 'dissing' of the logic that was suppose to bind your evidence together into your overarching claims. In otherwords, to demonstrate a flawed system of logic demands nothing beyond showing where the flaw, in the logic, exists. Nothing beyond this illumination is needed to take down an argument supported by a flawed logical paradigm.

If you can't speak to how valid historical fact, researched out and validated (check here (where you can read the whole article (and see the verification)) http://content.lib.utah.edu/cgi-bin/docviewer.exe?CISOROOT=/dialogue&CISOPTR=2213&CISOSHOW=2124 )(BTW, it was in the link you provided), impacts how you view and promote your own church history, you shouldn't be discussing things on the internet (or anywhere else for that matter), because you will just get your ideas laughed at because they are nothing more than a white-washing of history.

I never needed to disprove the evidence you posted because it was not the evidence I took issue with. It was the conclusions, and the adjoining logic you applied, that was in error. Beyond the demonstration of the deficiency of such I need no further evidence than what was provided by you.

If you can't face your own history, then you can't come to some peace with your church. To have to whitewash it all the time proves that there are things about it that you are uncomfortable with.

 

[death2impiety]

18 year old Mormon missionary 'elders' are an oxymormon...er oxymoron...

Ahh I get it now. I can always count on you GR!

 

[Mustard Seed]

So, you merely spoke and words appeared in this forum on the worldwide web?

In no way was a computer involved in producing that result?

If I believed that...

I'd have to also be dumb enough to wear magical underwear and call teenie boys on bikes... "ELDER."

So if this was in a graphite composed correspondance you'd call it "penciled-in-gibberish"? The format in which it is transmited, if it is gibberish, is irrelevant. The fact that you seem to think it is, and that you defend your irrelevant label, one you applied simply to try and gain some sort of advantage in expressing the confusion you feel at seeing words you don't understand, demonstrates what a moron you are and your incompetency in navigating the English language.

You've still failed to address the list of Biblical points I addressed. Here's some more touching upon the points you seem to find so "dumb"

Did you forget the Prophet called as a child?

1 And the child Samuel ministered unto the LORD before Eli. And the word of the LORD was precious in those days; there was no open avision.

Or the woman who touched the hem of a garment and was healed?

20 ¶ And, behold, a woman, which was diseased with an aissue of blood twelve years, came behind him, and touched the hem of his garment:

You hypocrite.

 

[Mustard Seed]

If you can't speak to how valid historical fact, researched out and validated (check here (where you can read the whole article (and see the verification)) http://content.lib.utah.edu/cgi-bin/docviewer.exe?CISOROOT=/dialogue&CISOPTR=2213&CISOSHOW=2124 )(BTW, it was in the link you provided), impacts how you view and promote your own church history, you shouldn't be discussing things on the internet (or anywhere else for that matter), because you will just get your ideas laughed at because they are nothing more than a white-washing of history.

How does the non-christian scientific community view the Bible? How do they view your view on history? Let's ask some historians and scientists that are not in the Judeo-Christian tradition and see how many of them would say the VERY SAME THING about YOUR take on BIBLICAL veracity. I would dare say that you'd be hard pressed to find a single one who would not call your view of history as being a "white-washing of history." Yet it is historians and scientists that you cling to in your attempts to refute our theology. Do you forget that the manner in which you judge will be the SAME manner in which YOU will be judged? You've judged me, and my view on history as being "white-washed". You now have no defense against the historians and scientists, that vast majority of which view your theological views as demanding an equivilant "white washing of history"

You too are a hypocrite.

If you can't face your own history, then you can't come to some peace with your church.

Can you face the history of your theology? No better than I can.

To have to whitewash it all the time proves that there are things about it that you are uncomfortable with.

And you are entirely comfortable with genocide if God says it's okay? With a council of men deciding what defines the Christian God several centuries AFTER he was manifested in the flesh?

Don't be the fool you are forming yourself into.

 

[oftenbuzzard]

So if this was in a graphite composed correspondance you'd call it "penciled-in-gibberish"? The format in which it is transmited, if it is gibberish, is irrelevant. The fact that you seem to think it is, and that you defend your irrelevant label, one you applied simply to try and gain some sort of advantage in expressing the confusion you feel at seeing words you don't understand, demonstrates what a moron you are and your incompetency in navigating the English language..

Yeah, you are a literary genius. Grab your peepstone and figure this out.

 

[Mustard Seed]

Yeah, you are a literary genius. Grab your peepstone and figure this out.

Okay. Not that deleting the font specifier is terribly difficult or requires any seerstone.

Next time try actualy learning another language rather than just running each letter through a dingbat based font that you're trying to pass as a cipher.

 

[oftenbuzzard]

Okay. Not that deleting the font specifier is terribly difficult or requires any seerstone.

Next time try actualy learning another language rather than just running each letter through a dingbat based font that you're trying to pass as a cipher.

Hey, DINGBAT is your language, just trying to relate. :kookoo:

 

[Mustard Seed]

Hey, DINGBAT is your language, just trying to relate. :kookoo:

No. A dingbat is something that looks good but is just there to take up space. It may appear that way to you since you seem unwilling to actualy find out what the words mean. If you did such (actualy look up the words you don't know and try and understand what was said) you would discover how precise and concise I am in what I say. I don't mince words. I use larger ones so I don't have to use as many, and so that what I say is closer to a clear image of what I'm trying to convey. But when the audience is determined to reside in ignorance I suppose it's and exercise in futility. You seem determined to only pick at the scraps you think will be easy to digest. Not being a terribly good buzzard.

 

[oftenbuzzard]

No. A dingbat is something that looks good but is just there to take up space. It may appear that way to you since you seem unwilling to actualy find out what the words mean. If you did such (actualy look up the words you don't know and try and understand what was said) you would discover how precise and concise I am in what I say. I don't mince words. I use larger ones so I don't have to use as many, and so that what I say is closer to a clear image of what I'm trying to convey. But when the audience is determined to reside in ignorance I suppose it's and exercise in futility. You seem determined to only pick at the scraps you think will be easy to digest. Not being a terribly good buzzard.

You know the funny/tragic thing is that you probably actually think you are erudite.

Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem.

translation...
In the good old days, children like you were left to perish on windswept crags
​

Aut disce aut discede !

translation...
Either learn or leave
​

 

[Mustard Seed]

You know the funny/tragic thing is that you probably actually think you are erudite.

Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem.

translation...
In the good old days, children like you were left to perish on windswept crags
​

Aut disce aut discede !

translation...
Either learn or leave
​

I'm not the most erudite of people. But I'm intellegent enough to see that you had to look up previously existing statements, that you don't actualy know, in any depth, Latin.

Fauzel neestam. Kaufy shenaucktan ahmaqee.

Apologies, as the above had to be put down phonetically as font and format necessary for a native statement is not available here.