Re: A Typical Conversation With Charles Beauchamp

Charles Beauchamp wrote:
aborgman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

http://download14.rbn.com/airam/airam/download/MajorityReport/fubar/Track5.mp3

Dan

A typical conversation with someone who simply starts blasting
the Bible without context might go something like that sure. I
don't have a problem with that statement. Not sure why someone
like you, who purports to be intelligent, would have such a
problem with someone holding a view that doesn't start from the
same assumptions that you obviously hold.

I am certain that 100% of reasonable people listening to the
above file will understand that the representatives of the
museum were being polite and reasonable...while the interviewer
simply was rude and abrasive. I will also note that as always
happens...the non-believer simply started firing up comments
about the Bible with no real idea what he was talking about.
Funny thing about that.

But..you aren't really interested in conversation. You are
just..a bigot. BTW..the Bible does not command Christians to
stone women during "that time of the month." So..if your
thread was meant to support the nutjob comment by the
interviewer well then again..."Oink! Oink! Oink!" -- Bretta.

Dinosaurs were hunted down by humans???

Where can I find that in the Bible?

Dan

Did you miss the part of the file where they said it was one
idea?

Yes. Apparently scientists using the scientific method are all
wrong, but the presense of a dragon on the flag of Wales is proof
enough for those bozos.


Did you do what Bretta does? Namely listen for things to argue
against while ignoring what was actually being said? Apparently.
The criticism of your side is primarily...that your side pretends
to have a corner on science while ignoring that your side is
largely as laden with bias and faith no less then "my side" is.
The difference of course being that your side pretends that you
are reliant entirely on facts. The scientific method is pretty
much only good for proving that which is observable. Since you
cannot observe anything from the distant past modern secular
science relies on some commonly held assumptions without which it
all falls to pieces. That is called faith. No more..no less. I
contend that there is no particular difference between my faith
and your faith other then the conclusions. Your faith in what
scientists are telling you isn't any better then my faith. And
since I assume you are not any expert on the subject matter
yourself I don't put a lot of weight in your particular criticisms.

The presence of a dragon the flag of Wales means nothing to me.
The legend of the existence of dragons though being far as I
understand..universal does say something of common belief being
worldwide like many other things. Some would say such universally
held cultural ideas are indicators of mankind generating from a
single original group. The Bible reader would see Noah and say
there you go. The modern scientist will say something else about
it I suppose.


I am curious why you seem so interested in convincing me of
something that I have no intention of convincing you the opposite
of. I mean...there is simply no possible way you or anyone else
in this forum is going to change my mind. And I have never
stated a desire to change your mind.

It's because people who hold a view like yours are frankly an
embarrasment. As Aaron said, your views on creation deserve
ridicule.


That I can state my view and make it clear exactly where it comes
from...while you remain a babbling hypocrite says only to me..that
you should be worried about who it is that agrees with you.
Wow..Aaron says my views of creatoin deserve ridicule. He..like
you...has never actually considered what my actual view is other
then..um...I believe the Bible.

Believing the bible and believing the bible literally aren't the
same thing. I think both are kooky - but one rates orders of
magnitude higher on the ridiculo-meter than the other.

Certainly if you are a bigot or just Hellbent on going to Hell. But
frankly I have zero interest in your opinion on the Bible. I have
addressed only content since a couple weeks back a loudmouthed
member of this forum made a statement about what was in the Bible
that was clearly false.

I'm still waiting for you to address that clear, interpretation free,
"word of god" lineage that shows us the ~6,000 year age of the earth.
Lets see you address that content.

I addressed it directly interpretation free in the very first reply I made
in that thread. You didn't like the reply.

I usually snip off excess citations in replies, but I wanted the
context here. Your "first reply" is right at the top of this post. I
cannot see anywhere in it that you addressed the issue at all. You
completely ignored it. It's right there in black and white, bigot.

Cheers,
--Jeff

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A Typical Conversation With Charles Beauchamp
    ... That is called faith. ... scientists are telling you isn't any better then my faith. ... Wow..Aaron says my views of creatoin deserve ridicule. ... typical out of context jabs that really had nothing to do with what I said. ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
  • Re: A Typical Conversation With Charles Beauchamp
    ... A typical conversation with someone who simply starts blasting ... Apparently scientists using the scientific method are all ... laden with bias and faith no less then "my side" is. ... "There is nothing patriotic about hating your country, ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
  • Re: A Typical Conversation With Charles Beauchamp
    ... A typical conversation with someone who simply starts blasting ... Apparently scientists using the scientific method are all ... laden with bias and faith no less then "my side" is. ... Wow..Aaron says my views of creatoin deserve ridicule. ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
  • Re: A Typical Conversation With Charles Beauchamp
    ... A typical conversation with someone who simply starts blasting ... Apparently scientists using the scientific method are all ... laden with bias and faith no less then "my side" is. ... I'm not saying I know better than God. ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
  • Re: A Typical Conversation With Charles Beauchamp
    ... Jon Enslin wrote: ... A typical conversation with someone who simply starts blasting the ... Apparently scientists using the scientific method are all wrong, ... That is called faith. ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
Loading