Your position is every bit as fixed as mine is. The fact that you seemingly have no comprehension of that, should cause you some alarm.
<You believe the opposite of my position to be true,>
In other words you believe the Bible is not inerrant, therefore it's not true.
Is this a factual statement?
I believe it is.
Is this position of yours fixed?
It would certainly appear to be. Although I, unlike you cannot see into the mind and hearts of other individuals. So if I use your somewhat dudious, (actually I meant dubious, but I like dude-ious, sounds like a California academic), logic, I am free to assume that your discussions have never been genuine. That is the same type of reasoning that you are using, and it's spurious. Is honest exploration only honest if it reaches the same conclusion that you do? It would certainly seem that way. I have come to my conclusions in the course of serious study, as I assume you have. You have no reason to question my sincerity, or disqualify from the discussion. Your just having a hissy fit.
"The reason your discussion with me was not genuine was simply this: You were not honestly sharing in a search for truth. You believed you WERE the truth. Your goal, therefore, was one of obfuscation and rationalization."
Here we go again. Twisted logic, that would be chapter six. You don't like my humor? Neither does my teenage daughter, so that's at least two of you. I have never claimed " I am the truth", can you show me where I've ever claimed such a thing? NO!
Logically , if your premiss is wrong, does that invalidate your conclusion?
"denying all the evidence that was presented to you"
You can hardly fault me for your poor Lawyering. You arguments have simply not been persuasive, therefore, as any good, er bad lawyer would you resorted to grandstanding.
Weak point, POUND PULPIT!
I believe that I have often admitted mistakes. I have also apologized when I have gotten carried away. If there were a least likely to admit they were wrong prize, on SI, you would win it hands down. It's actually kind of funny, in a ha ha sort of way.
BTW I have posed the same question to you (talking of pedophiles)
"Sorry, but you did not."
I think I have, but maybe I'm mistaken, let me ask you crisply and clearly.
Given the assumptions of moral relativism, is pedophilia objectively wrong????
I have no problem with big words, I just don't go out of my way to use them as a method of impressing or intimidating others as you seem to do. Myself, I enjoy learning new words, so neither of those techniques have much effect on me. I have a very large dictionary right here, and I'm not afraid to use it. |
