Pastor Frank wrote:
>
> "monkfish" <monkfish@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:xN2dnSiEFOBvqYPVnZ2dnUVZ_s2tnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > default wrote:
> >> 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.
> >
> Atheists never mention anything they believe in, because they can't
stop
> talking about what they disbelieve in. That means atheists wor****p their
> disbeliefs.
Have avoided you for a while Frank but decided I would drop
in today ---
--- only to find you struggling as usual trying to
propagate your myth.
Take a rest Frank, proving a fable is an impossiblity, you
should know that by now.
Bob
> >
> > First, you are confusing icons with idols.
> > Second, it says a lot about atheists
> > to say that God cannot be proven to exist
> > while they don't even know what God is.
> > I have talked sufficiently elsewhere
> > about the nature of the blid faith
> > cherished by atheists.
> > Maybe more later.
> >
> >
> > --
> > monkfish * alt.atheism is removed from the header because trying to
> > prove
> > the existence of God is prohibited by their undebatable policy.
> > ** Atheists have blind faith in their ability to know of all actual or
> > possible modes of existence. Such hubris cannot be good for science.
|
