Most of his arguments are clearly emotive, rather than dealing with the issues of truth
Greg, Greg, Greg! I have emotions. Arguments do not. And this ad hominen stuff only argues for a paucity of ideas...
Now, I have said this over and over and over--and I will say it again: I judge people by their behaviour, by their values. I have nothing against Christians, Atheists, Buddhists...or anyone else. What I have discussed with you (and others) is the Institution and belief systems of various Christian sects--including the minority Christian viewpoint of biblical inerrancy, which you have (poorly) defended here. Whether or not the incredible evil committed directly by the church speaks to the belief system, or to the criminals, is an important issue for each individual to address with heart and mind. I would suggest that many of these millions killed in the name of Christianity, would not have been tortured and murdered without the sanction and justification of the bible. If we are to ignore historical fact, then what is the point of discussing the issues at all? Indeed, what is the point of professing to seek Truth, if you are already convinced that the only Truth is Jesus, and all other paths are false? When I synthesize your "Ask God" posts with your posts here...I do not see an openness to incorporate ideas that might put your fundamental dogma at risk. You clearly have a mission to defend your beliefs--not only against the viewpoints of others--but against the cold hard facts of life and logic...and against your own relentless doubts.
As regards a cohesive philosophy of life: It has nothing to do with Theism. There have been (and are) innumerable cohesive philosophies of life.
Now, tell me: Are you now giving notice that you wish to argue theism versus atheism? or are you still arguing Christianity versus everything else?? |
