Tinkerntom wrote:
BCITORGB wrote:
Tink says:

I am desiring to address your post again, and so have reopened it. If
you are interested to respond, I would desire to hear from you. I
posted to this before, but I kept getting a server error so apparently
it never went through, at least Google is not showing it. If you with
your news service did receive something earlier, I would like to know.
It all works good when it works good, but when its bad, so sorry!

==============
I hate having a person laboring under the burden of a false
assumption.
I suspected that your assumptions were false, based on the apparent
fact, that you presented little support for making those
assumptions.
============

Tink, isn't that what I said? I repeat: I clearly made a false
assumption about JC being kind, loving and forgiving. Thanks to
you,
and your refeences to scripture, I have been disabused of such
faulty
notions.

Yes, and Good.

Tink says:
=============
You can see clearly now that your assumption was incorrect, and
your
conclusions based on those assumptions are at best currently
unsupported, and at worst, totally false.
================

Too right, Tink!

I can see clearly now that your JC would never support such crazy,
left-wing, notions as help to the poor, medical aid to those unable
to
pay for it, humane treatment of criminals, respect for those with
differing sexual orientations, and a host of other leftie projects.

You have knocked silly notions of a kind and caring prophet right
out
of my head.

I definitely agree that you have some silly notions about the kind and
caring prophet, and I would be interested where you got those ideas. I
regret that I was the one that had to knock you on the silly noggen,
but if it provides stimulation for you to consider that some of your
other notions may not be correct, then I hope you will forgive me for
upsetting your tidy little world!


Tink says:
======================
You are probably in the position that until you can present
supportable
assumptions, that you can not make any correct and supportable
conclusions about the above discussion.
===================

Tink, I'm really not sure what you're trying to say here.

Can I make supportable conclusion? Well, sure. IF I can assume that
you
know what you're talking about when you quote scripture, then I
have
supportable assumption. Don't I? (You do know what you're talking
about, right?)

I referred you to limited scriptures referring specifically to capital
punishment, which you then made certain conclusions about the nature of
God in general, and of JC in particular. There are many more scriptures
to be examined before we could determine such a broad subject, and
certainly not to be determined by your preconceived ideas based on your
predjudice and nothing I said and/or scripture I have todate even
referred to, would support your jumps in logic.

And in fact, it appears, that you would not actually be willing to
accept the scriptures I do present to you as being authoritative, and
that I know what I am talking about. I would rather you tell me that
you think that I am full of ****, than for you to patronize me. In the
proof of logic, you should provide your own proof. If I provide the
proof for your position, you would not know if I am blowing smoke up
your ass, because you don't have any basis to judge the validity or
not, of what I am saying. And hence any conclusion you make, is you
just trying to blow smoke up mine!

In fact, the further logical conclusion I pointed you to, if you really
cared, is that the very death penalty, resulted in the greatest acts of
love that have ever been displayed, by Christ, and have inspired many
other men to great acts of love as well. Hardly basis for your
following conclusion if you really care!

So, based on YOUR supportable assumptions, I draw my
conclusions about the nature of JC. Based on what you've said, I
conclude that he's not a very charitable or forgiving guy. Thus,
not
a
guy I'd like to emulate. That's the conclusion you wanted me to
reach,
wasn't it?

frtzw906

See you demonstrate that you are not qualified to jump to any valid
conclusions, unless you by accident land on one. You tell me, you are
the stat man, what are the chances of landing on a valid conclusion
when you jump blind folded, in the dark, and your launch pad is
nonexistant. You have no knowledge of what the valid conclusion would
look like if you landed on it, and all invalid landings would leave you
even more disoriented. And the number of valid landing spots is
miniscule in comparison to all the invalid ones. I am not so good at
crunching numbers, would you please do the honors?

Your conclusion in your last paragraph, illustrates my concern about
you being able to make valid conclusions. You concluded that I wanted
you to conclude that JC "is not a charitable and forgiving God." You
have heard enough from me recently to know that that is not a logical
conclusion from other things I have said, and so your assumtions and
conclusions must be faulted to allow you to arrive at that conclusion.
But you posted your faulted conclusion none the less, indicating an
unwillingness to consider all the data, or a preconceived notion of
what conclusion you wanted to arrive at; the first intellectually
slothful at best, and the second intellectually dishonest at worst. I
prefer to think better of you, and would be willing to look at these
issues further if you desire.

Now if you don't care, and don't desire, and really don't want to deal
honestly with these issues, or even the issue of Capital Punishment, I
am willing to allow you to concede, that you really are not prepared to
present these concerns and issues, and we can go happily on our way.

That does not mean, that you do not have valid concerns and issues that
would be beneficial to consider. If you would like to consider any of
your other lefty ideas, I am still open. Respectfully TnT