Absolutely. I mean, the audacity to take people's words literally instead of inferring what they must have meant! Waaayyyyy too nitpicky. We need more of guessing what people may have meant, and less of what they actually said!
David, I think we need to make more effort, as Christians, to understand what a person is trying to convey with a little more objectivity.
You posted two versions of what he said, the last being more clear, but you refuse to admit it adds more clarity to his point.
Well, you can bash him all day long. I refuse to do it. He is not a bad person.
God wrote the 10 commandments. God did not write the US Constitution or BOR. It's arrogant to say He did. Now, did several of the founding fathers use their belief in God and knowledge of the Bible in drafting the documents? Sure. Their words say such. But I don't believe God was as interested in a man-made government as is trying to be said here.
David, I think we need to make more effort, as Christians, to understand what a person is trying to convey with a little more objectivity.
You posted two versions of what he said, the last being more clear, but you refuse to admit it adds more clarity to his point.
Trying to understand is one thing, putting words in their mouths by claiming to know their thoughts, frame of mind or what they meant is different. And that's what you did with JA and it's what you're trying to do here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pressing-On
Well, you can bash him all day long. I refuse to do it. He is not a bad person.
Never said he was a bad person. He just said something stupid like most politicians do when pandering to a certain audience. Republicans tend to say dumb things in religious gatherings and Democrats tend to say dumb things in Hollywood. Never once called him a bad person, nor have I mentioned anything about his indictments or subsequent acquittal.
God wrote the 10 commandments. God did not write the US Constitution or BOR. It's arrogant to say He did. Now, did several of the founding fathers use their belief in God and knowledge of the Bible in drafting the documents? Sure. Their words say such. But I don't believe God was as interested in a man-made government as is trying to be said here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pressing-On
I think God was interested.
Did I say He wasn't? Read my quote and use the literal words I posted please. I wrote "as interested...as is trying to be said here." I did not say He wasn't interested.
Trying to understand is one thing, putting words in their mouths by claiming to know their thoughts, frame of mind or what they meant is different. And that's what you did with JA and it's what you're trying to do here.
Interesting that you backed out of the conversation after triumphant1 agreed with me. And I am not likely to forget how you distorted the points I was making. Not that I want to bring that up again, but do want to make the point.
You are also ready to throw Tom Delay under the bus as well.
Go ahead.
Quote:
Never said he was a bad person. He just said something stupid like most politicians do when pandering to a certain audience. Republicans tend to say dumb things in religious gatherings and Democrats tend to say dumb things in Hollywood. Never once called him a bad person, nor have I mentioned anything about his indictments or subsequent acquittal.
It wasn't dumb to him when he knows our country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. I'm not prepared to say that God wasn't involved when they, collectively, agree to write such strong words - "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness..."
Anyway, we've all made our points and I am finished arguing with you about it.
Did I say He wasn't? Read my quote and use the literal words I posted please. I wrote "as interested...as is trying to be said here." I did not say He wasn't interested.
Semantics....it comes across the same way - Secular humanists wrote the document, get over it, God wasn't very interested.
Semantics....it comes across the same way - Secular humanists wrote the document, get over it, God wasn't very interested.
That's NOT what I wrote. This is exactly the problem with you trying to guess at what people may have meant instead of reading/hearing the literal words they said.
You're not arguing semantics, you're telling a lie. I wrote what I wrote, not what you claim I meant.
Interesting that you backed out of the conversation after triumphant1 agreed with me. And I am not likely to forget how you distorted the points I was making. Not that I want to bring that up again, but do want to make the point.
You are also ready to throw Tom Delay under the bus as well.
Go ahead.
I didn't back out of anything, nor did I distort your waffling. I simply showed your own posts waffling, just as I showed your post claiming Delay didn't say what he said. And no, I won't forget that either.
I didn't back out of anything, nor did I distort your waffling. I simply showed your own posts waffling, just as I showed your post claiming Delay didn't say what he said. And no, I won't forget that either.
Whatever, I think you came across as abjectly dishonest.
Linear Mode
