Pastor Frank wrote:
>
> "default" <default@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:1209912195_1448@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > On Sun, 04 May 2008 09:48:59 -0400, monkfish <monkfish@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >>default wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 03 May 2008 22:16:22 -0400, monkfish <monkfish@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
> >>>>default wrote:
> >>>>> On Sat, 3 May 2008 16:27:15 +0100, "Bill M" <wmech@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Having difficulty answering the question eh!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Shuffle and jive while, ignorant trying to sound astute, that's
our
> >>>>> fish.
> >>>>
> >>>>You missed it as well!
> >>>>I guess I have to repeat myself a lot around here.
> >>>>Hundreds of painters are painting the same mountain.
> >>>>And a child comes along and asks
> >>>>which of the pictures is the real mountain.
> >>>>What would you say?
> >>>
> >>> I'd question the legitimacy of painting a mountain. Did the
mountain
> >>> need a face lift, was is to ugly it needed painting? Is it oil
based
> >>> or water based paint? What is the environmental impact? What will
it
> >>> cost? Who will pay for it?
> >>> Unless you meant to say "hundreds of artists came along." Were they
> >>> having a competition to paint a likeness of the mountain? Who was
> >>> sponsoring the event? How would it be judged? Was the child
> >>> unsupervised?
> >>> Why would I say anything at all? The kid has eyes and a brain. I'm
> >>> sure he can make the distinction between the paintings and actual
> >>> mountains. He can be the judge of what he finds pleasing.
> >>> As analogies go, this might be one of your worst to date. None of
the
> >>> paintings of mountains are the real one.
> >>
> >>First, a word can have many meanings.
> >>If you read the whole paragraph in context
> >>which talks about pictures of the mountain,
> >>you should have been able to pick the proper meaning.
> >>Your failure releals your closed mind.
> >
> > No. I was sarcastically pointing out your wording while interjecting
> > some humor - You are the one trying to game and manipulate logic into
> > some illogical conclusion.
> >
> >>BTW "atrist" is the first meaning of 'painter'.
> >>You should read more books about artists.
> >>http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/painter
> >
> > It might be, but when one lives in an area where there will be one
> > junk mail a week from painters looking for work . . . (house painters,
> > unless they want to do frescos or murals)
> >
> >>Second, sometimes it's not that easy to distinguish
> >>the subject from the words that describe it
> >>or from the things that symbolize or represent it.
> >
> > I like that you are trying to actually say what you mean instead of
> > the homily/analogy or a pre-programmed theological discourse you read
> > somewhere.
> >
> >>If you think you know what God is
> >>when you have no faith in God,
> >>you are talking about an idol.
> >
> > Huh? An idol is a symbol or object of wor****p? Christians love idols
> > they use the crucifix, statues, paintings, relics, etc.. The object
> > of wor****p itself? like praying to an object? Not my thing either.
> > Having no faith in god doesn't mean I MUST have faith in something
> > else - simply not logical.
> > You seem to have a lot of preconceived notions of what atheists are or
> > what they believe - that is simply not so. Atheists simply don't
> > believe in god.
> >
> Tell us what you mean by "God" so we can join you in disbelieving in
it.
Are you THAT stupid Frannk asking someone who rejects all
gods to say what he means by one?
GROAN you get worse by the month
> I am guessing, but I'm pretty sure none of us theists believe in any
god of
> YOUR definition.
There's only one definition for sane people:
'God'
Superhuman being wor****pped as having power over nature and
human fortunes
Oxford P.O.D.
Now take you sarcastic silliness elsewhere,
or come back with an intelligent dialogue based on facts not
your fancies
|
