Knight:
Having problems keeping up? I know I'm faster than lightning but really, I do try to keep my most of my words below two syllables for the benefit of the "brightest radio audience in the country".
I'm sorry. I'll spell it out for you. I will happily have this argument with Lion, but only when he has shown himself able to defend a recent claim he made. After all, I often hear fundamentalists talking about a rational defense of their hardline faith based on evidence and the process of reason. So when more worldly claims are made that should be easily verifiable and are destructive in their effects, why shouldn't the maker of such claims be required to back them up?
So I'm not really interested in anything Lion has to say today or tomorrow or 50 years from now unless he will one day put his money where is mouth is. I'm not holding my breath though (although I'm sure he'd like me to).
If you guys can't be bothered to support your swingeing accusations, why should we believe that truth is important to you, as you so often insist?
Freak:
Flipper, are you now taking up a Christian cause (as in defending the preterist movement)?
Heck no. I'm almost totally disinterested in preterism as it seem a plausible and coherent interpretation of events as opposed to the wildly entertaining LaHaye-like End-Times claims that makes for much more interesting reading. Either way, it's all pin-dancing in my view and so there are better ways for me to invest my time.
But I am interested in people, how they treat others, and what they say versus what they do.
So no, I'm not defending preterism. I'm asking someone who purports to adhere to a strong moral code to support some accusations that were, I think we can all agree, destructive. If he doesn't want to (and it would be quite understandable if he didn't), then I don't have anything I'm interested in saying to him, nor am I interested in anything he has to say.
I'm sure he'll be heartbroken.