Judgement is the Lord's not mine. I am only worried about my own standing. I can't say anything about yours.
Maybe double check that. Here are just the judgments you have made today:
And with your attitude, you will never qualify. So, with your drivel, ... All you can do is speak and spread denialism and faithlessness to the weak minded.... you can't be cordial and [you] throw around insults at people you disagree with... I am fully aware that every time I come here, I am among a den of lions that aren't looking to be my friends, but to be fault finders.... because they can't act friendly even though they disagree. They have to act like jerks, and then sit there and make accusations that I am a jerk just because I respond the least bit defensively... All you can do is speak and spread denialism and faithlessness to the weak minded.
Don't get me wrong, judge all you want, but when you do it, and then announce that you don't, you're going to get called on your lie.
Lemmie wrote:Maybe double check that. Here are just the judgments you have made today: . . . Don't get me wrong, judge all you want, but when you do it, and then announce that you don't, you're going to get called on your lie.
Oh. Ok. Here we go. Now you think that I'm going to agree to a fault finding contest to see who has the biggest fault finding shwartz.
Ed Goble wrote:2) This book got into the hands of the Egyptians in the Greco-Roman era. 3) Egyptians love word and symbol games. 4) Egyptians in the Greco-Roman era thought it would be artistic and neat to take characters from the papyrus and decorate an ancient book of Abraham copy with them, and play word games with the symbols and tie them in with the wording of the Book of Abraham. Its like somebody decided that these characters would make a fun numbering or marking system for paragraphs of text.
That's quite a theory. Have you studied what other people have written about Egyptian culture, art, and writings?
Lemmie wrote:Maybe double check that. Here are just the judgments you have made today: . . . Don't get me wrong, judge all you want, but when you do it, and then announce that you don't, you're going to get called on your lie.
Oh. Ok. Here we go. Now you think that I'm going to agree to a fault finding contest to see who has the biggest fault finding shwartz.
Not at all. Just pointing out your lies. You'll get further here if you don't lie.
Ed, what I don't understand is this: If you have already decided that your testimony from the holy ghost Trump's anything else, and will not even seriously consider contrary evidence or spiritual convictions of others, no matter how compelling or strongly held, why bother to even do this kind of study at all? You have already admitted that nothing will ever change your already made up mind no matter what. How can any rational person not already subscribing to your views possibly not see your position as both insufferably arrogant and willfully ignorant?
You have expressed objection to being compared with irrational creationists, but have not shown and cannot show any good reason for regarding your position as any less irrational, bigoted and inherently dishonest than theirs--or, for that matter, that of the Flat Earth Society or Geocentrists!
I prophecy that all you will succeed in doing in the long run is further underscoring the basic irrationality and moral and intellectual bankruptcy of your approach to discerning truth.
No precept or claim is more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.
“If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.”
― Harlan Ellison
Gunnar wrote:Ed, what I don't understand is this: If you have already decided that your testimony from the holy ghost Trump's anything else, and will not even seriously consider contrary evidence or spiritual convictions of others, no matter how compelling or strongly held, why bother to even do this kind of study at all?
Why bother to talk to me at all? The Holy Ghost is primary evidence, because it is primary to Mormons. We both know this. And? Its like you sit there and hit the same note on the piano as if it is supposed to mean anything to me. It isn't a tune, and it isn't the topic of the conversation. Are you done yet? Is it productive? It doesn't seem to be productive. It seems it is you that you ought to move on. Being a denialist of something doesn't make you right. It just means you disagree with it as an evidence, and it means you are sitting here wasting your time talking to a Mormon that doesn't agree with you. Are you done?
Lemmie wrote:Not at all. Just pointing out your lies. You'll get further here if you don't lie.
Ok. So you sit there and whine about FARMS for their ad-hominem practices, yet you make me an offender for a word. That's called ad-hominem. Are you done yet too? Or are you going to sit here and continue to waste your time with this stupid irrational Mormon too?
Gunnar wrote:Ed, what I don't understand is this: If you have already decided that your testimony from the holy ghost Trump's anything else, and will not even seriously consider contrary evidence or spiritual convictions of others, no matter how compelling or strongly held, why bother to even do this kind of study at all?
Why bother to talk to me at all? The Holy Ghost is primary evidence, because it is primary to Mormons. We both know this. And? Its like you sit there and hit the same note on the piano as if it is supposed to mean anything to me. It isn't a tune, and it isn't the topic of the conversation. Are you done yet? Is it productive? It doesn't seem to be productive. It seems it is you that you ought to move on. Being a denialist of something doesn't make you right. It just means you disagree with it as an evidence, and it means you are sitting here wasting your time talking to a Mormon that doesn't agree with you. Are you done?
With that reply you underscored once again your insufferable arrogance and intellectual vacuity. I agree it is not productive to engage with you on this topic, any more than it is productive to debate a fanatical flat-earther. Nothing is more glaringly obvious to me than that by far the most unreliable approach to discerning truth is the religious faith in divine revelation approach. The simple, undeniable fact that there are so many thousands of mutually contradictory religious belief systems, all of whose adherents are absolutely convinced that their convictions are a product of personal inspiration and revelation from God or the Holy Ghost is indisputable proof of that. Even if one of these mutually contradictory belief systems really were the absolute, God given truth it claims to be (which no more than one of them can be, since no two of them agree with each other), the unreliability of that approach is still established beyond all reasonable doubt.
I will now leave you to your delusions!
No precept or claim is more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.
“If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.”
― Harlan Ellison
EdGoble apparently does not realize that it is not an ad-hominem to truthfully point out (as Lemmie did) that EdGoble had lied. Refusing to consider the merits of an argument because its presenter has previously been caught in a lie would be a valid example of ad-hominem. Even a known liar can occasionally come up with a valid argument. No one lies 100% of the time.
No precept or claim is more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.
“If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.”
― Harlan Ellison