Re: the thing about ND's accomplishments.........

Bryan S. Slick wrote:
> At about Mon, 14 Nov 2005 18:33:27 -0800, Charles Beauchamp was
> dragged into the street and beaten by an angry mob for writing..
>

OH WOW I FORGOT THIS THREAD!!! Dangit.

>> Bryan S. Slick wrote:
>>> At about Tue, 15 Nov 2005 01:03:06 GMT, Daniel Seriff was dragged
>>> into the street and beaten by an angry mob for writing..
>>>
>>>> Don't you talk ugly to me, Onyx_Hokie. I'll send you to the moon
>>>> with my magic shirt!
>>>>
>>>>> Daniel Seriff wrote:
>>>>>> Don't you talk ugly to me, Onyx_Hokie. I'll send you to the moon
>>>>>> with my magic shirt!
>>>>>
>>>>>>> You can't seriously be unaware of how often your ugly
>>>>>>> fundamentalism has reared its head. No one can be that
>>>>>>> un-self-aware. It's not possible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Argument from personal incredulity.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's way too early and I've been up for entirely too long to know
>>>>> exactly what you're trying to say with the above, Daniel. Please
>>>>> explain.
>>>>
>>>> Joke, dude. An argument from personal incredulity is "I don't
>>>> believe it, therefore it isn't true".
>>>>
>>>> Incidentally, it is one of the main rhetorical weapons in the
>>>> fundamentalist toolbox.
>>>
>>> That's a fair point, naturally. I just figured Beauchuck's annoying
>>> holier-than-thou stuff in religious threads in the past was so
>>> obvious that I didn't have to search for it. I'm not going to
>>> search for it now, so if he wants to claim "victory", so be it.
>>> *shrug*
>>
>> No such thing has ever happened a single time despite your misplaced
>> arrogant proclaimations. What has happened numerous times is I have
>> stated a position and the origin of said position on such things as
>> abortion for example and you have spouted off blind nonsense my
>> direction without any evidence of consideration of said point. Your
>> ignorance does not equate to my supposed holier then thou
>> stuff...especially since no such position by me has ever been
>> stated. Not once. Not ever.
>
> *yawn*
>
> Very well, then.. if you want to just outright lie, I guess I will
> take a few seconds of my time and dredge up some Googlebits.
>

and of course you do exactly what I accused above....namely blind nonsense
without any evidence of consideration of said point to wit:

> Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc..
>
> http://tinyurl.com/cmman
>
> Fun bits of insanity: Voting for John Kerry is a sin.
>

you cite a message that obviously went far over your half wit brain
regarding an odd position taken by a Pastor who himself was in large margin
taken out of context over a position of his own. One that I did not support
and stated as much. Nice try though.

> http://tinyurl.com/aq759
>
> FBOI: Beauchamp insulting Woodruff's mother for not being as holy as
> he is because she doesn't take the Bible literally in every sense
>

Again wrong. That message quite clearly to people who can read and
comprehend was an answer to something Trent said where HE not I tossed his
mom up as somehow proof that my view on the Bible was wrong
because...well...his mother said so. No where do I claim to be holy. This
by you is an absolute clear example of again...what I accuse you of
above...namely throwing this nonsense at me about my non-existent
self-righteousness essentially because you cannot explain your own position
and are apparently incapabale of understanding mine.

> http://tinyurl.com/bjlpd
>
> FBOI: Beauchamp describing those who interpret the Bible in a way
> different from his programming^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H instruction as
> heretics who are mentioned in Revelations
>

Interesting. Doug Sorensen chimed in with a reply in a conversation about
some pretty specific questions from the Scriptures with "IMHO (and that of
many biblical scholars), biblical fundamentalism is the heresy of this age.

Notwithstanding the fact that he is taking a direct shot out of nowhere at
fundamentalism with the amazing supporting evidence of "many biblical
scholars" as if there are not literally tens of thousands on my side on
these matters...he makes absolutely no attempt to actually address anything
else that was said. What could be more arrogant then to simply fly out of
left field and accuse me of heresy without making any attempt at support?

To that I replied the Biblically factual Prophetic statement found
throughout the New Testament regarding the final days "Your opinion is
neither humble (he put the IMHO marker at the start of his comment) nor
relevant. (Me and Trent were talking about content of Scripture) The Bible
describes the
teachings of todays liberal christianity as end times heresy." I replied to
someone who presumed to call me a heretic without evidence of his own...with
a reply from the context of a Scriptural position.

It is interesting to note that the next message in the thread is of
course...YOU presuming to call me for some non-existent "holier-then-thou"
attitude because apparently in your warped view I am supposed to be silent
once one of your fellow secular humanists spouts off at me about the
Bible/Christianity whatever is eating you people up at that moment. Curious
arrogance you have there Slick.


> There's tons upon tons of more references available in Google,
> Charles. All one has to do is look for you mentioning the Bible or
> God, and there's a good chance that you're presuming to talk down to
> someone about either subject.
>

And what you actually find is not one example..ever...of me actually doing
what you always accuse me of doing. Ever. You routinely will fire up that
I am somehow either judgemental (which if false. What I do 100% of the time
is put things into actual context and state exactly where my position on
whatever argument is happening right from the texts. Then what happens is
you or one of your pals in the debate suddenly freaks out that an actual
Christian actually believes what the Bible says...and you folks sping out of
control from there. You personally will generally start an IM drill with a
DO YOU ACTUALLY BELIEVE THE FLOOD rant demonstrating exactly what pretty
much 100% of RSFC knows. You are not reasonable.)

> I was going to grab more links, but you know what? I stumbled, while
> looking at this nonsense, on a thread about how hateful RSFC had
> become in late 2003, and I really am not interested in yet another
> flamewar.
>
> As I have mentioned to you previously, I don't think you're a bad
> person but I do think that you're frequently (mostly) blind to the
> way you talk down to people on a consistent basis.

Pot kettle black.

You don't see
> telling people that they're WRONG about Biblical interpretation as
> being holier-than-thou or judgemental.

It is if that is all that is happening in whatever example you want to bring
up. But you have not found one such example. What every one of the threads
you linked to instead showed was me pointing out something straight from
Scripture and being assailed for the very basic reality that I don't think
God is a liar and that He means what He says. Simple stuff really. And I
never make any attempt to just throw my own opinion in there despite what
you say.

You don't see that telling
> someone that by choosing to exercise their right to vote for the
> candidate of their choice that they're sinning is not only
> judgemental but that it flies in the face of a Hell of a lot of the
> principles on which this nation was founded.
>

I see that this is exactly not at all what I said and even at the time in
the thread you cited that was not what I said. Not even close. I also note
that your interpretation of principles that this nation was founded on has
little if anything to do with whether or not it is a sin to support things
that the Bible says are wrong. Regarding the vote I take it pretty
seriously. I recognize that as a Christian it is absolutely sinful to
support political positions that are counter to my faith. Otherwise I would
in fact be a hypocrite. What is astonishing is how often you and the other
secular humanists in this forum seem to think that Christians are supposed
to set aside their faith when they enter the voting booth. You
particualarly freak out whenever abortion comes up.

> Etc, etc, etc.
>
> In short.. you FRUSTRATE the *** out of a lot of people, Charles.
> You're clearly intelligent.. but ultimately far more concerned with
> winning a pissing contest than with presenting a good argument.

You mean like when in a discussion about something that is said in the Bible
I do that remarkable thing and quote the Bible in context and then get
flamed endlessly by folks who without anymore evidence then 1. their mama
said so or 2. some unnamed Biblical Scholars think the Bible doesn't mean
what it says? Or do you only mean that deal where you start IMing me
endlessly asking if I believe in the flood or a literal view of the Creation
account?

As I
> mentioned to you just a few threads ago, when faced with an argument
> that goes against yours, you resort to nonsense about the person
> making the argument rather than by assailing their points...

Oh you must mean that part where Doug Sorensen out of nowhere called
fundamentalists (and he directed it at me) are heretics...that part? None
of the threads you cited are examples of what you are stating here.

> ridiculous. I expect that sort of crap from Hoover, Snorky, etc.
> Perhaps Furr's right and I should stop being frustrated and simply
> ignore your posts.

Pot kettle black. Only in this case you are just plain wrong. Learn your
subject matter and maybe you would have an argument.

--
v/r Beau

Tuna Sandwiches are to me what Spinach is to Popeye




.

Loading