Re: Rational thought process vs creationist 'thought' processes

Sean McHugh wrote:
 
> lynx wrote:
>   
>> Sean McHugh wrote:
>>
>> Sean.. maybe you posted this without proof reading it?
>>     
>
>
> I saw a missing word which was my typo. In your reply I also saw a
> string of missing words from the middle of a paragraph. But those
> words appear in my post. Was there something else I missed? 
>   
 
I thought there were several, some duplicated words and a sentence that 
didn't make sense. Perhaps I'm confused, and tired or both. It is Friday 
nite. (I think!? )
 
> I'm guessing that your position is one of holding some things sacred.
>   
 
I think that's a principle that's being lost in todays society, and one 
that shouldn't be. As I've been saying, in one way or another, we don't 
seem to be drawing any lines (and I'm not talking just about religion) 
or if we do, we keep crossing them.
 
> I understand that. However, because I don't believe in Christianity at
> all, for me it can't be sacred. That's why I can't see how someone
> could be sceptical yet demand that Hell (a Rowland versus
> fundamentalism issue in another strand/thread) be held sacred.
 
If you're suggesting that I hold the doctrine of hell sacred, then let 
me say that I don't. I only make the point that it's an essential part 
of christian belief, and to deny that it is is wrong.
 
>  To me
> Hell's absurdity is only exceeded by its obscenity and associated
> pomposity. 
 
That's irrelevant with regard to it's reality or not.
 
> If you're right and Rowland doesn't afford it credibility,
> then I consider that a plus for him. 
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
>
>
> Sean McHugh
>   


-- 
rgds,

Pete
=====
http://pw352.blogspot.com/
'I'm not young enough to know everything' -Oscar Wilde