In your original post about the subject you wrote "Some Crazy libs don’t know the difference between words and stones, smh." indicating that harmful words couldn't be considered stones. . . . the verse is not just about throwing physical objects that are "stones".
I don't need to Google anything. I know exactly what the passage says, I know the literary context, I know the historical context, I know the grammatical context, I understand the cultural context, and I have translated the Gospel of John as well as all three Johanine epistles from Greek to English. I also know things that I will not state here. Your interpretation of the text is wrong, sunshine.
I am so very pleased for you. Well done.
Perhaps you need to work on your written communication of that understanding. . . because when you write : "Some Crazy libs don’t know the difference between words and stones, smh." it relays the complete opposite of what you claim to be true.
You are being disingenuis by pretending you don't realize that people constantly use that verse whenever someone uses words to communicate a moral absolute.
Now, look at the meme in context. It was used as a response to my post. My post was words, correct? SO if it was not used in response to words, what is it in response to?
You are being disingenuous by pretending you don't realize that people constantly use that verse whenever someone uses words to communicate a moral absolute.
Not at all. I wasn't considering other people using the verse and I don't drink vodka: moral absolutes were the furthest thing from my mind. . . You should become a politician. Have a great day.
Last edited by mgh888; 02/25/2008:28 AM.
The more things change the more they stay the same.
I don’t care about the Ontological positions of Ontological Naturalists, thank you very much. But feel free to keep promoting it that absurd philosophy
Moral absolutes were the farthest thing from your mind because you don’t know how people abuse that verse any more than you know how to properly use it. You have a nice day too
If you don’t believe in anything supernatural, you are an ontological naturalist by default. Did you not know that? So it’s not name calling, it is accurately identifying your ontological worldview
Dagesh sounds like Trump’s new nutbag spiritual advisor.
Who recently told her flock to pay the church before they pay their own bills.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
The one who visits heaven and sees demons everywhere?
Yep. Them demons better pay their 10% as well. They ain’t excused from it.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Do try to twist my words. I said you don't know what I believe in.
Would you say that Ontological Naturalism is a rather superstitious belief? After all, not all superstitions are supernatural in nature.
This looks like an example of reaching for anything that might help you make a point. I could answer your question but don't think I'm going to play your game because I'm just not that interested in what you think or have to say.
Not one of my responses was directed at you. I only responded to you when you directed statements and questions to me. And it is a superstition:
su·per·sti·tion /ˌso͞opərˈstiSH(ə)n/ Learn to pronounce noun excessively credulous belief in and reverence for supernatural beings.
Not one of my responses was directed at you. I only responded to you when you directed statements and questions to me. And it is a superstition:
su·per·sti·tion /ˌso͞opərˈstiSH(ə)n/ Learn to pronounce noun excessively credulous belief in and reverence for supernatural beings.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Not one of my responses was directed at you. I only responded to you when you directed statements and questions to me. And it is a superstition:
su·per·sti·tion /ˌso͞opərˈstiSH(ə)n/ Learn to pronounce noun excessively credulous belief in and reverence for supernatural beings.
Ok, now try a grownup’s dictionary
source, google search results From Oxford dictionary.
Definition of superstition 1 a: a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation b: an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition
Is 'Ontological Naturalism' your new phrase of the day? I've read hundreds of your posts and never seen you use that phrase. Yet today, in response to me particularly, you have used it several times. It's almost like you stumbled upon it and have been saving it for a special moment. smdh
Is 'Ontological Naturalism' your new phrase of the day? I've read hundreds of your posts and never seen you use that phrase. Yet today, in response to me particularly, you have used it several times. It's almost like you stumbled upon it and have been saving it for a special moment. smdh
You said belief in God is superstition. It’s almost universally ontological naturalists that say that
And no, I’ve been using the term for about 20 years now.
Do you believe in abiogenesis as origin of life? That’s an unscientific belief if I ever saw one
I'm not sure if I believe in that or not, but there is more evidence of it being possible than there is that God exist. We are all made of those lifeless substances and share at least partial common DNA with many other living things. That's more evidence than any Christian has presented on God.
Definition of superstition 1 a: a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation b: an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition
Yep. And abiogenesis believes the origin of life is random, ie chance
Do you believe in abiogenesis as origin of life? That’s an unscientific belief if I ever saw one
I'm not sure if I believe in that or not, but there is more evidence of it being possible than there is that God exist. We are all made of those lifeless substances and share at least partial common DNA with many other living things. That's more evidence than any Christian has presented on God.
Commonalities in DNA do not demonstrate common ancestry. That is a bare assumption
And the Bible tells us the substance we are made of thousands of years ago, ie of the earth
You don't know what I believe other than I don't believe in god.
Your Statement that my belief is superstition cannot be explained or substantiated by science or reason.
This is some serious double talk here! lmao
My statement that your belief is superstition cannot be explained by science or reason. Hmmm... So my opinion that your belief is superstition needs scientific proof to be true or needs to be logically proved to be true, even if there is zero evidence that your belief is based in reality? NOPE. This is a rabbit hole I'm not going down. If you want to believe in superstition, that's 100% on you.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/PortlandDawg/banner.jpg)
