Subject:
|
Re: Does God have a name for God?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 30 Jan 2001 18:23:26 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
q_harlequin_p@hotmail.com/antispam/
|
Viewed:
|
3245 times
|
| |
|
|
On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 18:11:12 GMT, "Bruce Schlickbernd"
<corsair@schlickbernd.org> wrote:
> > > > > > > The truth can also be found in the Bible, not merely on my website.
> > > > > > Probably, but then we wouldn't get to read your insightful
> > > > > > interpretations of it, now would we?
> > > > > If it bothers you, don't read it.
> > > > Why are you telling me this?
> > > Read your comments previous to mine above.
> > I did, I still don't see your point. I wasn't being sarcastic at that
> > point you know...
> Liar, liar, pants on fire...
Me?! Lie?! No, never. : )
> > > > > I don't see what's wrong with expressing
> > > > > oneself on their own website.
> > > > I don't either...when exactly was that an issue?
> > > Same again. If you feel you have to sneer at his website, don't bother with
> > > it. Just advice. Feel free to ignore it.
> > But I like his colorful interpretation of the bible, it provided me
> > with much humor this morning.
> Wait, you just said you weren't being sarcastic at that point. At least
> keep your story straight.
I wasn't, it was "insightfully" humorous.
> > > > > Cogito, ergo sum.
> > > > Okay, okay, all the Latin is just getting annoying now.
> > > I think, therefore I am. Not applicable to all, I'm afraid. Or, as I say:
> > > If God wanted me to think, he would have given me a brain. (usually unsaid
> > > but implied, "...given me a brain capable of doing so.")
> > I love it when people think the ablity to think grants them some
> > special enlightened state. Just because you can think doesn't
> > necesarily imply that you exist. I think, therefore I think, nothing
> > more.
> Or so you think.
Or so you think I think.
> > > > > > > Therefore, mankind, in pride, also exalts himself, ignoring God and the
> > > > > > > truth.
> > > > > > And so you're like what, the only non-sinner, righteous, d00d on the
> > > > > > planet?
> > > > > There are many different levels of pride, some destructive, some
> > > > > constructive. Wisdom is telling the difference (that's a comment aimed at
> > > > > both of you).
> > > > Maybe wisdom is not being able to tell the difference. Perhaps you're
> > > > wrong, ever think about that?
> > > Latin makes your bain hurt? Let's go Greek: mere sophistries.
> > It's all Greek to me. : )
> Okay, plausible but specious form of argumentation (or, more bluntly, a load
> of bull).
Having a load of bull is sure a lot better than being someone standing
in it.
> > > Naw, you just enjoy being flippant and think yourself clever for it.
> > Let's keep you thinking that way...it flatters me.
> You already proved my point, now you are just being redundant. :-)
But you don't have to have a point to have a point.
> > > This
> > > kind of humor doesn't always come off well in the written word with a bunch
> > > of people you don't know, or don't know you. It's something that works
> > > better face-to-face in the real world.
> > Maybe some people should consider me a lesson in growing thicker skin?
> At appears some people consider you an example of someone lacking social
> skills
Perhaps I'm just used to socializing with more civilized socialites.
> (see "nerd" under the thread about the distinction between geeks and
> nerds). You may wish to reconsider what I wrote above about humor - I note
> that I'm not the only one saying this.
In fact it's been said before, and not just to me. The problem with
small social corners like Lugnet is certain phrases and ideals seem to
just sit and simmer for months and months on end. Too bad some of the
originality people have for their Lego models can't rub off on their
torpid, antediluvian, lexicon's
> Hey, but if you want some more rope,
> knock yourself out...
You make it sound like most of the people's fatuous, irascible,
paroxysms are the direct fault of little 'ol me...*sigh*...if only I
really did have that much power. : )
Robert
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Does God have a name for God?
|
| <snip> It is my considered opinion that he's stating that you are rude to people, deliberatly picking fights. You call it humor, but it is only funny if the other folk find it funny too. This may not be your fault, it's just one of those things (...) (24 years ago, 30-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Does God have a name for God?
|
| (...) Liar, liar, pants on fire... (...) Wait, you just said you weren't being sarcastic at that point. At least keep your story straight. (...) Or so you think. (...) Okay, plausible but specious form of argumentation (or, more bluntly, a load of (...) (24 years ago, 30-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
137 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
