Wow, this is one for the books!!!

[ans]

"While I realize that this is nothing more than a "proxy thread" attempting to mock DT and his faith, it also vividly illustrates the pure emotionalism and lack of any intellectual honesty on which all such attempts are based."



No, it isn't. No it doesn't.



"I assumed the poster actually knew what he was taking about"



Don't make assumptions



"Debbie demurred"



So?



"The total inability to clearly state - much less expound on - one's thoughts is a very sloppy mindset to depend on; and one which I suggest does not, and will not, serve you very well."



Now you're getting it. This is what we spent ten pages trying to illustrate to old what's his name. Duh.



"So I'd suggest you would benefit a great deal from racheting up your level of logic and honing what intellectual capabilities you may posses."



heh. You WOULD suggest, but you didn't? Suggesting is an act, after all. Not an impulse.



Or is it?

[Galmin]

Quote:

---

You WOULD suggest, but you didn't? Suggesting is an act, after all. Not an impulse.

---

Ron surpressed the desire to make a suggestion?



















Kant said once there can be no moral without freedom.

[ans]

GALMIn: "Ron surpressed the desire to make a suggestion?"



Galmin, I don't know if he suppressed his desire or not. I'd go research his comment looking for signs of such suppression, but then I'd have to scroll up, and look, and quite honestly I don't see why I should have to do all that. Why don't you just copy and paste what he said in your next post. It's your job because it's you who suggested he may have suppressed his suggestion. Or pardon me, his DESIRE thereof





BITWHYS: "doing their own thing" was Y*w*h's idea"





His idea made manifest thru His will He had to teach us a lesson re that unfortunate tower debacle and now humans are cursed with the need to do their own thing. If you don't give into that need you can learn to live without it. You'll then be free to do 'God's thing'.





To the assorted nay sayers and backsliders I repeat:



Absolute understanding can't exist outside an absolute framework. In a relative framework understanding is relative, and relative understanding is responsible for the condition the world is in today. Everybody understands things differently, in other words everybody's 'doing their own thing'. Read for yourself in the Old Testament about the 'Tower of Babel', if you can, (without complaining how SOMEBODY WON'T READ IT TO YOU) and maybe you'll understand. After all, "It's a more blissful world when you deal in absolutes".





Some people point to the Bible and say READ IT AND YOU'LL UNDERSTAND. Others point to Google and say the same thing. The burden of research INVARIABLY falls on the SERIOUS seeker of answers.



Ron, you have yet to prove how this thread is NOTHING more than a proxy thread, and you haven't even begun to smudge the shiny surface of the vehicle of proof with regards to how this thread "illustrates the PURE emotionalism and lack of ANY intellectual honesty on which ALL such attempts are based". Come on, "ALL such attempts"? And how does 'pure' emotionalism differ from the other kind?







RON; "I posed the question "how are they markedly different"?



And because of your own research, you were able to answer it. Check the thread in which you posed the question if you don't believe me. Or take me at my word. Either is fine with me, but Don't cry that I'm not copying and pasting it here here for you. Researching things for yourself served you well when you initially answered your own question. I'm just trying to help. "Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day; but teach a man to fish and he eats forever"







"The total inability to clearly state - much less expound on - one's thoughts is a very sloppy mindset to depend on"



But here you make a groundless supposition? Think about the definition of the word 'depend'







"Nor is mockery a valid substitute for intellectual honesty"



Who said it was? Nobody.







"It practically screams 'I lack the intellect and logic to answer any challenging question, I desperately need an out!!!"



That may be how you practically hear it, but I'm afraid that says more about you than it does about challenges or desperation









". . . compounds your embarrassment."



Not so fast, Merlin. Just who is embarassed again? I missed that part. Let me research . . . Oh. Nobody. Verry sneaky. Try to salt in a suggestion that someone (but not you) is embarassed. Where did you learn that trick? Is IT a "substitute for intellectual honesty"?







"It really does make things much more interesting."



Evidence, please. Oh never mind, I'll Google for it.



Nope. Ratcheting up one's level of logic doesn't necessarily make things much more interesting. So you can either be wrong about the 'really' or wrong about the 'much'. Take yer pick

[bitwhys]

Quote:

---

unfortunate tower debacle

---

[HKRockChick]

This thread continues on its entertaining way!!!