22 Apr, 05:05AM in sunny Singapore!

Recent Posts by BroInChrist

Subscribe to Recent Posts by BroInChrist

  • Moderator
    BroInChrist's Avatar
    3,110 posts since Dec '11
  • Moderator
    BroInChrist's Avatar
    3,110 posts since Dec '11
  • BroInChrist's Avatar
    3,110 posts since Dec '11
    • Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:

      source A is correct. Evidence? Source A... talk about fallacy. Im glad i scored my social studies and know how to validate my sources.

      You may know how to validate your sources but you do not know how to read properly. How about you provide a coiple of examples to back up your allegation? A few out of 7,000 over articles shouldn't cause you much difficulty if your allegation has legs to stand.

  • BroInChrist's Avatar
    3,110 posts since Dec '11
    • Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:

      that does not explain your intention, or good intentions if any other than being sacastic to ppl whom have ceased to believe in what you believed.

      All i see, an attempt to ridicule at other's belief.

      I explained but you did not accept, saying more will be a waste of words and will only draw more hostile fire from you. You see what you only want to see.

      Edited by BroInChrist 10 Sep `12, 1:32PM
  • BroInChrist's Avatar
    3,110 posts since Dec '11
    • Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:

      I believed i already explained previously. An evidence or a proof or anything christianity coming from a largely bias christian source made up of scientist/writers who are christians inclined to support the christian worldview are a bias source by itself. This makes the proof very less reliable. Even in secondary school students are taught to cross reference from other sources to prove something.

      While it is not wrong for christians to support and write about christians worldview, but using that to prove whatever in the christians worldview as the factual truth is in itself wrong.

      you are still the same... forever getting overly defensive. It makes things hard for ppl to have a good discussion here.

      I will stop here for now. Do not think you will take what i've said.

      It is still the genetic fallacy. The allegation of being unreliable must be proven, not assumed. Do you consider the accounts of the Holocaust written by the surviving Jews as unreliable because it was written by Jews to support the plight of the Jews? If you have bothered to check out the more than 7,000 articles on Creation.com you would not fail to see the cross-references and citations provided. Your objection is really without merit. And on what basis do you say it is wrong to use the information provided by Creation.com? I think you are simply being biased and prejudiced.

      I am not being overly defensive anymore than you are being overly attacking. Why should I not defend my views from your criticism if I consider it unfair or erroneous? I did not dismiss your views out of hand, I actually show you why I disagree and point out where your problem lies.

      And for what it's worth I also do not think you will take what I have said.

  • BroInChrist's Avatar
    3,110 posts since Dec '11
    • Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:


      If you had not rejected that... was there a good reason for posting what you posted of TCMC?

      There was, and I have already stated that clearly, Tcmc does not believe a single word of it. It's a fact, is it not?

  • Moderator
    BroInChrist's Avatar
    3,110 posts since Dec '11
  • BroInChrist's Avatar
    3,110 posts since Dec '11
    • Originally posted by [imdestinyz]:


      Obviously expected... obviously wrong too. Worst off as a evidence of proof.

      Why would the obviously expected be obviously wrong? You are merely making a dismissive remark. Can you back that up or are you going to give an excuse for not backing that up?

  • Moderator
    BroInChrist's Avatar
    3,110 posts since Dec '11
    • I find this article "Why I Believe in 24-Hours Day" very useful. Excepts below:

      This plain-language (of 6 literal normal 24-Hrs Day) reading assumes recent creation, not one where days “stand for” or “allow” or “are indifferent to” long ages of time. A recent Protestant scholar, James R. Mook, summarizes this way:

      "A natural reading of the Church fathers shows that though they held diverse views on the days of creation, and correctly gave priority to the theological meaning of the creation, they definitely asserted that the earth was created suddenly and in less than 6,000 years before their time. They left no room for the ‘old earth’ views promoted by Ross and other moderns."

      Orthodox scholar, Seraphim Rose (1932–1982), who openly disdains conservative Protestant interpretation of Scripture, nevertheless writes,

      "Some rather naive “theologians” try to say that the Six Days of Creation can be indefinitely long periods, that they can correspond to the different geological strata. This, of course, is nonsense because the geological strata do not have six easily identifiable layers, or five or four or anything of the sort. There are many, many layers, and they do not correspond at all to the Six Days of Creation. So that is a very weak accommodation. As a matter of fact—even though it looks as though it might be terribly fundamentalistic to say it—the Holy Fathers do say that those Days were twenty-four hours long. St. Ephraim the Syrian even divides them into two periods, twelve hours each. St. Basil the Great says that, in the book of Genesis, the First Day is called not the “first day” but “one day” because that is the one day by which God measured out the entire rest of the creation; that is, this First Day, which he says was twenty-four hours long, is exactly the same day which is repeated in the rest of creation. If you think about it, there is nothing particularly difficult in that idea, since the creation of God is something totally outside our present knowledge. The accommodation of days to epochs does not make any sense; you cannot fit them together. Therefore, why do you need to have a day that is a thousand or a million years long? The Holy Fathers say again with one voice that the creative acts of God are instantaneous. St. Basil the Great, St. Ambrose the Great, St. Ephraim and many others say that, when God creates, He says the word and it is, faster than thought. There are many Patristic quotations about this, but we will not go into them here. None of the Holy Fathers say that the creation was slow."

      Even very recently, Albert Mohler states,

      "What we have here in Genesis 1:1–2:3 is a sequential pattern of creation, a straightforward plan, a direct reading of the text would indicate to us seven 24-hour days, six 24-hour days of creative activity and a final day of divine rest. This was the untroubled consensus of the Christian church until early in the 19th century. It was not absolutely unanimous. It was not always without controversy. But it was the overwhelming, untroubled consensus of the church, until the dawn of the 19th century."

      Victorinus (4th century) says,

      "Even such is the rapidity of that creation, and which is called Genesis. God produced that entire mass for the adornment of His majesty in six days; on the seventh to which He consecrated it. . . . In the beginning God made the light, and divided it in the exact measure of twelve hours by day and by night. . . . The day, as I have above related, is divided into two parts by the the number twelveby the twelve hours of day and night."

      Ephrem the Syrian (306–373), who knew Hebrew, opines,

      "Although the light and the clouds were created in the twinkling of an eye, still both the day and the night of the First Day were each completed in twelve hours."

      Ambrose (337[340]–397) teaches,

      "Scripture established a law that twenty-four hours, including both day and night, should be given the name of day only, as if one were to say the length of one day is twenty-four hours in extent. . . . The nights in this reckoning are considered to be component parts of the days that are counted. Therefore, just as there is a single revolution of time, so there is but one day. Thus were created the evening and the morning. Scripture means the space of a day and a night, and afterwards no more says day and night, but calls them both under the name of the more important: a custom which you will find throughout Scripture"

      The Venerable Bede (673–735) says,

      "At this point one day is completed, namely, twenty-four hours."

      It is hard to avoid the conclusion of Robert L. Dabney (1820–1898) who teaches,

      "The narrative seems historical and not symbolical; and hence the strong initial presumption is, that all its parts are to be taken in their obvious sense. . . . The sacred writer seems to shut us up to the literal interpretation by describing the day as composed of its natural parts, ‘morning and evening.’ Is the attempt made to break the force of this, by reminding us that the ‘evening and the morning’ do not make up the whole of the civic day of twenty-four hours; and that the words are different from those just before, and commonly afterwards employed to denote the ‘day’ and the ‘night,’ which together make up the natural day? We reply: it is true, morning and evening do not literally fill the twenty-four hours. But these epochs mark the beginnings of the two seasons, day and night, which do fill the twenty-four hours. And it is hard to see what a writer can mean, by naming evening and morning as making a first, or a second ‘day’; except that he meant us to understand that time which includes just one of each of these successive epochs:--one beginning of night, and one beginning of day. These gentlemen cannot construe the expression at all. The plain reader has no trouble with it. When we have had one evening and one morning, we know we have just one civic day; for the intervening hours have made just that time. . . . It is freely admitted that the word day is often used in the Greek Scriptures as well as the Hebrew (as in our common speech) for an epoch, a season, a time. But yet, this use is confessedly derivative. The natural day is its literal and primary meaning. Now, it is apprehended that in construing any document, while we are ready to adopt, at the demand of the context, the derived or tropical meaning, we revert to the primary one, when no such demand exists in the context."

      To bring the debate down to the modern day, Gerhard F. Hasel (1935–1994) concludes,

      "This paper investigated the meaning of creation “days.” It has considered key arguments in favor of a figurative, non-literal meaning of the creation “days.” . . . The cumulative evidence, based on comparative, literary, linguistic and other considerations, converges on every level, leading to the singular conclusion that the designation yom, “day,” in Genesis 1 means consistently a literal 24-hour day."

  • BroInChrist's Avatar
    3,110 posts since Dec '11
    • Originally posted by Tcmc:

      BIC

      I am referring to the thought process of both a terrorist and a martyr ,that both die for a "higher" cause.

      In the bible? How about those believers in the OT destroying children?

      The thought process are also different. You should not be superficial in your treatment of such things as it can be very misleading and distorting of the truth.

      How about you deal with my point about the NT before we talk about the OT? Why you ignore that?

  • BroInChrist's Avatar
    3,110 posts since Dec '11
    • Originally posted by Tcmc:

      Actually come to think of it, terrorists die for the same reasons too.

      They think their "god" tells them to and they know their loved ones are at home. Bu tthey rather obey their god and not care about their families. To them, thats a greater cause - dying for god and beliefs

      So you are saying that terrorists are no different from martyrs? Then you are sorely mistaken.

      Terrorists demand that others die for their beliefs.

      Martyrs are those who choose to die for their beliefs.

      Again I will speak from the Bible, no where in the NT do we have any example of a believer who acted like a terrorist. The people who complained about the Christians were NOT complaining that Christians were killing people or blowing others up at marketplaces. Rather they were complaining that the Christians were preaching that Jesus Christ was killed and raised from the dead according to the Scriptures and that He would come again to judge the world. If anything it were the Christians who were the ones being terrorised for their beliefs!

      Edited by BroInChrist 28 Aug `12, 11:31AM
  • Moderator
    BroInChrist's Avatar
    3,110 posts since Dec '11
    • Originally posted by Religion of Pee Pee Pee:

      Then, what have been YOUR context and purposes of posting in sgforum???????

      hehehehheh.........heheh.......

       

      For that you should have read the description at the top of the page here in this link http://sgforums.com/forums/4245 .

  • Moderator
    BroInChrist's Avatar
    3,110 posts since Dec '11
    • Originally posted by Religion of Pee Pee Pee:

      I got banned for sharing news of CORRUPTION in MOSQUES in Malaysia.

      Oh I see. But what was the context and purpose of your sharing? Any constructive comments included by you? Uhh....and I think your choice of nick wasn't helpful either.

  • Moderator
    BroInChrist's Avatar
    3,110 posts since Dec '11
  • BroInChrist's Avatar
    3,110 posts since Dec '11
  • Moderator
    BroInChrist's Avatar
    3,110 posts since Dec '11
    • White Dust,

      This feedback reply http://creation.com/universe-cause has a comment on the issue of God creating "before" time began. The one giving the feedback wrote, "A creator is only necessary if time existed before the universe. Time did not exist before the universe. Therefore, a creator is unnecessary." Is this also your view?

  • BroInChrist's Avatar
    3,110 posts since Dec '11
    • Originally posted by Aneslayer:

      ^Begging question fallacy x 6...

      Epic-failed fallacy-detective FTW!

  • Moderator
    BroInChrist's Avatar
    3,110 posts since Dec '11
    • Originally posted by Religion of Pee:

      The Catholic church in America

      Earthly concerns

      The Catholic church is as big as any company in America. Bankruptcy cases have shed some light on its finances and their mismanagement

      Aug 18th 2012 | BOSTON, NEW YORK AND SAN DIEGO | from the print edition




      OF ALL the organisations that serve America’s poor, few do more good work than the Catholic church: its schools and hospitals provide a lifeline for millions. Yet even taking these virtues into account, the finances of the Catholic church in America are an unholy mess. The sins involved in its book-keeping are not as vivid or grotesque as those on display in the various sexual-abuse cases that have cost the American church more than $3 billion so far; but the financial mismanagement and questionable business practices would have seen widespread resignations at the top of any other public institution.

      The sexual-abuse scandals of the past 20 years have brought shame to the church around the world. In America they have also brought financial strains. By studying court documents in bankruptcy cases, examining public records, requesting documents from local, state and federal governments, as well as talking to priests and bishops confidentially, The Economist has sought to quantify the damage.

       

      The picture that emerges is not flattering. The church’s finances look poorly co-ordinated considering (or perhaps because of) their complexity. The management of money is often sloppy. And some parts of the church have indulged in ungainly financial contortions in some cases—it is alleged—both to divert funds away from uses intended by donors and to frustrate creditors with legitimate claims, including its own nuns and priests. The dioceses that have filed for bankruptcy may not be typical of the church as a whole. But given the overall lack of openness there is no way of knowing to what extent they are outliers.

       

      The retirement funds for Wilmington, Delaware, were largely lost when it settled sex-abuse claims for $77m in February 2011. Those funds had been tossed into a pooled investment account that also contained parish investments and funds for cemeteries and the education of seminarians. The Eastern United States province of the Passionists, a missionary order, has diverted retirement funds to cover operating expenses. In a bid to stave off bankruptcy it has sold off property, including a 14-acre piece of New York waterfront, and made an unorthodox investment in a Broadway show, “Leap of Faith”. It flopped.

      In a public company, this type of thing would attract regulatory scrutiny. In the church, retirement is still largely in the gift of the bishop. Retirement plans for priests are typically set up as diocesan trusts rather than proper pension funds with structured benefits. They do not fall under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, the law that establishes standards for plan trustees and remedies for beneficiaries, including access to federal courts. Priests thus have no recourse to law if they are hard done by. Nor, as a matter of course, can they take their pensions with them if they leave for another diocese.

      Richard Vega, who recently stepped down as president of the National Federation of Priests’ Councils, estimates that 75-80% of clergy pension schemes in America are underfunded. He says that only a small minority of priests will have set aside enough of their net average salary of $25,000 a year to cover themselves. Others will be less fortunate.

      The clergy and its creditors

      The principle of separation between church and state in America means that religious groups are not required to file tax returns, list their assets or disclose basic facts about their finances. Some dioceses do publish accounts, but these tend to provide an incomplete picture. Though lawyers for dioceses facing bankruptcy have fought to keep most financially sensitive documents sealed, the process has forced the church to let in unaccustomed light.

      The documents that have been disclosed reveal that some bishops in the bankrupt dioceses presented the diocesan funds of parishes, schools, hospitals and retirement accounts as separate when they were really simply book-keeping entries in the same pooled investment account. The diocese of San Diego, for instance, reported to the bankruptcy court that it had over 500 accounts. But these were merely entries in a “Parish, School Diocese Loan Trust Account”, maintained in a single bank account at Union Bank of California.

      Such pooling saves on administrative costs and allows dioceses to use a surplus in one area to cover shortfalls in another, often a legitimate course of action. But it has presented problems when it comes to working out which assets belong to whom in bankruptcy proceedings.

      The vast majority of parishes that commingled their funds with those dioceses now in bankruptcy lost all their investments. In some cases they were misled into believing that the money would be kept separate from the main diocesan funds, and thus safe in the event of bankruptcy. The judge in the Wilmington bankruptcy, Christopher Sontchi, said parishes that had suffered this fate had grounds to sue the diocese for breach of fiduciary duty. None has—but that is hardly surprising, given that the bishop and the chancellor of the diocese sit on the five-member board of trustees of each parish.

      Some parishes were more careful than others in ensuring their funds were handled properly. According to a document in The Economist’s possession, a parish priest in Wilmington wrote to the diocese: “Find enclosed a cheque for $1,000,000 to be invested in [the parish of] St Thomas’s name in the diocesan account. It is my understanding that if the need arises, this is and always will be available for parish use. If this is not the case, please return it and I will put it under my mattress for safe keeping.” The diocese cashed the cheque, apparently depositing it in a general cash account. The parish lost the money when the diocese struck a sexual-abuse settlement. By contrast St Ann’s parish, also in the Wilmington diocese, wired its deposits directly into a segregated investment account at Mellon Bank rather than to the diocesan cash account at Citizen’s Bank. Its trustees also insisted on drafting a special agreement stipulating that funds provided to the diocese were held in trust.

      Plaintiffs’ lawyers have raised questions about financial transfers in dioceses threatened with bankruptcy. These tend to go the other way—moving money out of diocesan accounts and into parish accounts, trusts of various sorts and any other receptacle at hand. According to an independent report commissioned by a bankruptcy judge, at one point priests in San Diego were taking cash out of accounts and putting it in safes in the rectories because they wanted to keep it out of reach of plaintiffs. Nobody becomes a priest, monk or nun in order to spend their professional life as a financial manager, so no doubt part of this money shuffling is down to innocent incompetence. But the church does shift between considering all assets as part of a single pool when that suits, and claiming that funds have always been separate and ring-fenced when they are exposed to claims.

      Creditors in the Milwaukee bankruptcy case, which is still in progress, have questioned the motives behind a $35m transfer to a trust and a $55.6m transfer from archdiocese coffers to a fund for cemeteries. Cardinal Dolan, who was Archbishop of Milwaukee at the time, authorised both transactions. The creditors think the movement of such large amounts had more to do with shielding cash from sexual-abuse victims than with the maintenance of graves, calling the manoeuvre fraudulent. Cardinal Dolan’s office responded to questions about these allegations by pointing to blog posts in which he described them as “baloney” and defended the transfers as “virtuous, open and in accord with the clear directives of the professionals on our finance council and outside auditors”.

      As “debtors in possession”—entities that have filed for bankruptcy yet retain their assets—bust dioceses have an obligation to enlarge their assets to satisfy their creditors. On the contrary, “we have seen a consistent tactic of Catholic bishops to shrink the size of their assets, which is not only wrong morally but in violation of state and federal law,” says Ken Brown of Pachulski Stang, a California law firm that has represented creditors in eight of the ten Catholic bankruptcy cases.

      In a particularly striking example, the diocese of San Diego listed the value of a whole city block in downtown San Diego at $40,000, the price at which it had been acquired in the 1940s, rather than trying to estimate the current market value, as required. Worse, it altered the forms in which assets had to be listed. The judge in the case, Louise Adler, was so vexed by this and other shenanigans on the part of the diocese that she ordered a special investigation into church finances which was led by Todd Neilson, a former FBI agent and renowned forensic accountant. The diocese ended up settling its sexual-abuse cases for almost $200m. If it had not done so, the bankruptcy would have been thrown out of court and the bishop and chancellor of the diocese and its lawyers might have faced contempt charges.

      Some assets are not listed at all. In a corporate bankruptcy, if insurance is relevant to the reason for the company’s failure then its insurance policy has to be listed as an asset. Not so those of the Catholic Mutual Group (CMG), which stepped up its help for Catholic dioceses in the mid-1980s—a time when liability insurance became too expensive as a result of the increase in sexual-abuse claims. Since the CMG is technically not an insurance company but a voluntary religious “mutual benefit society”, its policies do not have to be disclosed as assets in a bankruptcy proceeding, even though it contributes substantial funds towards settlements.

      One way to reduce costs is to reduce the number of parishes. There are two ways to do this. The first is to merge one parish with another parish and combine their buildings, congregations and finances. The second, more controversial way is to “suppress” the parish, which involves the transfer of all of the assets to the bishop, who reassigns parish priests as he sees fit. The funds in the parish bank accounts are placed in the general treasury of the diocese, as are the proceeds of land sales, none of which is subject to disclosure. Faced with shortfalls in Boston (where he was a temporary administrator) and later in Cleveland, Bishop Richard Lennon suppressed dozens of parishes as part of reorganisation plans for each of the two archdioceses; given the pervasive commingling of accounts, some of the money thus accumulated could have gone to pay operating expenses and, at least in Boston, court settlements.

      The parishioners were unimpressed. Some heckled the bishop when he visited their parish to celebrate mass. One of the Boston parishes, St Frances Cabrini in Scituate, Massachusetts, has been occupied for the past eight years by parishioners who have refused to accept its closure. They have a roster chart to ensure at least one person is at the church at any time, so that the archdiocese can’t change the locks. Some parishes have filed appeals to Rome. In an unusual move in March, the Vatican reversed the closing of 13 of the parishes that Bishop Lennon had suppressed.

      As well as questionable financial management, the church also suffers from fraud and embezzlement, according to Jason Berry, an expert in Catholic finance and author of “Render Unto Rome: The Secret Life of Money in the Catholic Church”. In March the former chief financial officer of the archdiocese of Philadelphia was arrested and charged with embezzling more than $900,000 between 2005 and 2011. Hundreds of priests have been disciplined for taking more than a little “walking around money” from the collection basket.

      In the corporate world, those who witnessed such malfeasance might alert a higher authority. But priests make unlikely whistle-blowers. It is often hard for them to imagine a life outside holy orders, which could be their fate if they alienated the bishop who has a hold over their salary, pension and private life. Would-be whistle-blowers will also be aware that local and federal authorities are loth to investigate mainstream religious groups for fear of the political consequences. Assistant United States attorneys in two different federal districts have pushed the FBI to investigate concealment, coercion and financial mismanagement in parts of the church but have got nowhere.

      The taxpayer as good Samaritan

      Growing financial pressures have encouraged the church to replace donations from the faithful with debt. According to figures from the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board over the past decade, state and local authorities have issued municipal bonds for the benefit of at least 50 dioceses in almost 30 states to pay for the expansion and renovation of facilities that would previously have been largely paid for through donations. Overall church muni debt has increased by an estimated 80% over that period. At least 736 bond issues are currently outstanding.

      California is the biggest borrower. Although funding for religious groups is prohibited under the state’s constitution, a series of court rulings has opened the door to bond issues. Catholic groups there have raised at least $12 billion through muni bonds over the past decade. Of that, some $9 billion went to hospitals. In one case, in San Jose, the money went to buy chancery offices for the bishop.

      The dioceses back their bonds with letters of credit from banks. Among the most active guarantors are Allied Irish Banks (AIB), US Bancorp and Wells Fargo. None of the banks was prepared to discuss the financial terms of these contracts.

      Muni bonds are generally tax-free for investors, so the cost of borrowing is lower than it would be for a taxable investment. In other words, the church enjoys a subsidy more commonly associated with local governments and public-sector projects. If the church has issued more debt in part to meet the financial strains caused by the scandals, then the American taxpayer has indirectly helped mitigate the church’s losses from its settlements. Taxpayers may end up on the hook for other costs, too. For example, settlement of the hundreds of possible abuse cases in New York might cause the closure of Catholic schools across the city.

       

      Manhattan’s largest landowner

       

      It is not wrong for churches to issue bonds. But, like many other aspects of the Catholic church’s finances, this should be more transparent. It is quite possible that church finances are, taken as a whole, not as bad as the details coming out in bankruptcy cases suggest. Dioceses and religious orders that go bankrupt cannot be assumed to be representative. If so, then showing better management in the rest of the church would do a lot to allay concern. And increased openness might have the added benefit of bringing in the acumen of a knowledgeable and concerned laity.

      Some influential Catholics are keen to see better management and more openness and accountability. Leon Panetta, America’s defence secretary, called for outside oversight of church finances when he was a director of the National Leadership Roundtable on Church Management, a position he relinquished in 2009 to become director of the CIA. Faced with competition from other churches and disgrace from the behaviour of some of its priests, there has never been a more important time to listen to such calls, and to invite in the help and scrutiny that the church’s finances seem so clearly to need.

      NOTE: For more detail on how we calculated the annual income and spending for the Catholic church in America see here.

       

      http://www.economist.com/node/21560536

      RoP,

      Why post this article? Are you going to comment on it? What's your point in this? What is this article supposed to show or prove? I see you only have ONE post so far. Is this a hit-and-run post where you create an ID just to post something and then abandon ID?

  • BroInChrist's Avatar
    3,110 posts since Dec '11
    • Originally posted by Aneslayer:

      You kept saying my interpretations was wrong when even Augustine admits his interpretations were not infallible in your link, attempting to appeal to his authority on your argument. You haven't provided the evidence as you claimed to prove your interpretations right but can boastfully say im wrong. I don't see the rationale of your approach.

      Satan can take form in anything I guess. Why would it bust it own legs and crawl? Serpent doesn't mean only snakes... Its also a symbol for wisedom.        
      If you see my previous post, its before creation of wild animals... missed out the wild animals part on the last post...

      Then you are deliberately being ambiguous when asked to clarify. So much for open discussion...

      See you still cannot accept God's definition of an evening and a morning makes a day as a duration of a day... Pretty straightforward. The duration of a day is an evening and a morning. That is the length of a day. I accepted it as a fact with no conflict. What is stopping you from believing God meant a day to be an evening and a day? Your timepiece?

      You failed to define it in English. I wouldn't use unintelligible words to converse in postings. Meaningless.

      That your interpretation of Augustine is shown to be wrong has NOTHING to do with any notion of Augustine's infallibility, a notion that no one to holding on to anyway. Why should Augustine be infallible just to be able to say you are wrong? Like I said, you can quote Augustine, so can I. You can appeal to him, so can I. Deal with it. I have already shown how your interpretation of "could be" was already off which cannot be denied.

      It's easy to see how your view crumbles upon scrutiny. If you say that Satan assumed a serpent form to tempt Eve, and God judged his serpentine form, then it means that satan can undo God's judgement by changing back to his original spiritual nature. But if you say serpent is just a symbol then explain why God would want to curse a symbol and make it eat dust? All land animals were created on Day 6 i.e. the snake was created on Day 6 along with all other land animals and also humans. So what is the big deal you are making about being created before the wild animals? Completely irrelevant!

      But I asked you for your sources for your interpretation of Rev 20:2 and you went silent on that. So you anyhow gasak one ad hoc interpretation one issit?

      You complaining about me being ambigious in my replies? That's really a shameless double standard thing accusation on your part.

      Ad nauseum! I have already stated that I take a plain sense reading of Genesis regarding what the day is, that it is an evening and a morning. I take the view that this day is the same as our 24hrs day. Setting aside whether you think I am right or wrong, I am asking YOU (more than once already) to tell me how long that day is by our measurement, man-made or not. Stop your evading tactics on this. Or are you afraid to be shown to be in error if you make known your views? Saying "I don't know" is a cop out, and ignorance is not a basis to say that my views are wrong. 

      Just because you are ignorant of what "teh gong" means does not mean it is unintelligible. You may well lack the intelligence to find out what that means. Even more ironic is the fact that I have already told you what it meant. You need to be more perceptive.

  • BroInChrist's Avatar
    3,110 posts since Dec '11
    • Originally posted by Aneslayer:

      Ok... that's 3 false accusations... with no meaningful implications.../thread.


      Question begging still. And still not telling us whether scapegoat fallacy is necessarily emotional or must contain such language. Why?

  • BroInChrist's Avatar
    3,110 posts since Dec '11
    • Originally posted by Aneslayer:

      A false accusation of logical fallacy is always a fallacy.


      Question begging again.

  • BroInChrist's Avatar
    3,110 posts since Dec '11
    • Originally posted by Aneslayer:

      You quoted my post a claim to have spitted a question begging epithet... You do know what's that right?


      Must it always or necessarily involve emotional words?

  • BroInChrist's Avatar
    3,110 posts since Dec '11
    • Originally posted by Aneslayer:

      Nothing emotional in my word usage in the previous post... Point to me the emotionally charged word/s to account for your accusation.


      Who said anything about being emotional?

  • BroInChrist's Avatar
    3,110 posts since Dec '11
    • Originally posted by Aneslayer:

      Perhaps you feel that way because you always deny the error of your reasoning...


      Question begging epithet spotted.

  • BroInChrist's Avatar
    3,110 posts since Dec '11
    • Originally posted by Aneslayer:


      Two wrongs make a right and shifting the burden^ is so easy to use.

      You claim you spotted a scapegoat fallacy, I call it inappropriate as fallacies do not apply to opinions. You question my definition when its you whom call scapegoat fallacy to define it in the 1st place. If no defense from you, I conclude you are confusing explanations and excuses and indeed calling out fallacies without much thought.


      You can conclude whatever you like. You never defend your allegation of fallacies anyway. Duh.