Should God be replaced? Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Should God be replaced?

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Greg or e who wrote (27695)	10/21/2009 3:08:04 PM
From: LLCF	Read Replies (1) of 28931

<You have been using the same dishonest equivocation on the word "personal" for months now. I don't expect that you will ever admit it, but it's obvious for all to see.> Ummm guy: 1.) that's impossible (as anyone can see) since I've been asking for a definition for months. Just another childish strawman set up to bowl over. 2.) I'm the one that has noted there is essentially infinite meanings... YOU are the one who claims some common meaning!! ROFMAO <Christians believe that God is personal in nature as opposed to Pantheists who do not. > But your description of 'personal' is indistinguishable: en.wikipedia.org <Christians also believe that Humans beings are created by a personal God in His image and that they have been made with the communicable qualities that distinguish us from rocks and trees. > Well, that's the first we've heard that!! Imagine that! OTOH your description didn't distinguish human from tree at all: ""A personal God is one that is self aware, rational, volitional, has emotions, and is able to act."" <Clearly when you deny and ridicule the very idea that God is a being that is personal in nature, > I don't and didn't... especially not YOUR description... of course we haven't discussed what your version of god does or how he communicates yet... thanks for bringing THAT up... <This all started when you did not want to admit that you were a creationist in the broad sense of the word but were happy to call other people who believed essentially the same thing as you do, names.> Exactly... this all started when you used your 'personal' definiton of things (here "creationist") as opposed to what is normal common usage in society. Further thanks for pointing out that YOU started all this as a 'smoke screen" for your belief in myths vs evolution! ALMOST FORGOT! THANKS! DAK

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next