Londoner wrote: ↑Sun Apr 22, 2018 9:36 am
-1- wrote: ↑Sat Apr 21, 2018 8:27 pm
You are so full of it that it hurts to read you.
Nothing personal?
You would have done better to have avoided the ad hominem in your first response to me, then apologised when it became evident you had misread me, or more probably mixed me up with some other poster. But instead you carry on digging.
I'll leave you to it.
Yes, I got personal. I got personal because you first insulted me, for no reason:
Londoner wrote: ↑Fri Apr 20, 2018 6:34 pm
But please go on instructing me in a subject you admit you know nothing about.
I knew the subject all right. The subjec is the meaning of words. How to read a simple sentence in English. This is what the topic is, applied to an instance, which is a line in the bible.
Yes, I know little about the bible. But you can't say I know nothing about it.
And certainly you can't say I know nothing about language and meaning of words.
This is why I insulted you back.
-----------------------------------------
And the meaing of my insult?
I got frustrated by your skirting around by substituting other words for evil, each of which word had BADNESS involved in them, and you triumphantly tried to declare that therefore "I create evil" is not "I create evil". But each word you and other bible transalations subsituted, contained elements of evil. God created them. So how come you insisted that god did not create evil? Again, the fault in your argument lay in saying this: (in a quasi-symbolic form of logic):
"A created B" is not true (a linguistic argument was presented to support this).
However, it is true that A created C.
It is also true that A created D.
It is also true that A created... n.
And C, D, ... n are not B.
Therefore A did not create B.
---------------------------
The counter argument ot this is
However, all of C, D, ...n contain elements of B. All of C, D, ... n contain harm, destruction, things to fear and that cause pain.
-----------------------------
You kept on simply ignoring the counter-argument.
You got personal, and so did I. Nobody did something that the other did not do.
I reject your pretension of leaving this argument on moral grounds.
I instead see your retreat as a response of yours where you must admit to a logical argument, but the argument goes so much against your own beleifs, that you are incapable of doing that.