The more Godless America becomes, the more 'uncivil' it also becomes

well I guess we don't agree. Imagine that. Oh well, it was a "pipe dream" anyway.

 

Why did you think we agreed? Did you not read any of the posts?

 

no, I just closed my eyes. Pressed a whole bunch of keys, and pressed "Post quick Reply". I know, I'm opening up the door for a good joke with that one, huh?

 

Not really, but you are revealing how your presuppositions color what you read to the point of total incomprehension.

 

such as.....?????

Oh my goodness, I just caught that......(I know, I'm slow)........you're calling me out on presuppositions???? Thats hilarious!!! You're the king of presuppositions!!! LOL!!!

 

Apparently not.
Yours have left you without the ability to read.
I did an entire post on the difference between absolute truth and subjective truth, and another using an example of a glass of glycerin in a museum. You pretend like they were never discussed in a fog of denial brought on by your own presuppositions.
You don't seek truth. You hope to impose it. That is why you admire systematic theology and imagine it to be an academic exercise. They also start with a predetermined outcome they seek to justify.

 

No, BB, what you thrive on is watching people dance, when you catch them in something. And thats why you don't like my responses, I don't dance. I give you honest answers, to the best of my knowledge, and stay consistent, and it kills you. LOL!! Keep 'em comin' BB!

 

Your consistency is on display now in the thread "That's a fact!"
You are one of the great tap dancers on PF. You frequently refuse to give straight answers, but spin away using endless evasive questions and non-sequiturs.
That doesn't "kill" me. It justifies me.

 

Actually, I'm getting a little tired. I'm ready to move on. My answers aren't going to change, in this thread or the other, so are we done? I mean, if you feel "justified", are we not done? I'm taking "justified" to mean "satisfied", am I right? so since you're satisfied, can we move on to a new topic?

 

Trying to maintain a semblance of integrity when you trip logically so often must be exhausting. I would want to move on as well. Try to let the evidence disappear in the archives.
If you don't have the scruples to admit the shortcomings of your arguments, all you have left is quietly walking away.
You don't need my permission to do that.

 

the only shortcomings I have is that I wont let you corner me, or spin me. Are we done yet, my answers will not change. are we done?

 

You are done whenever you choose to be.
How do I spin you by quoting you?
You corner yourself.

 

by reading what you want.

The same way you tried to on the "absolute truth" talk that we had. The same as you did on the "good samaritan" talk. Its the same thing everytime, you read what you want and jump to conclusions.

 

I don't edit your posts, as you do to avoid the uncomfortable screw ups, dishonestly changing their intended message. I quote the whole inconsistent jumble.
I do very little. You do all the work for me.

 

ok, now you're not making sense. If I "editted my posts, to avoid uncomfortable screw ups", how would you know? Because they would be editted out if I did that, right? I don't know you've lost me now.

 

Pretty easy to lose you. The original post was on the previous page. Not too hard to check your dishonesty. You are trying miserably to defend it in the thread "That's a fact!".
You are making this way too easy.

 

as I said, how do I edit something and you know about it? That in itself doesn't make sense. You'd have to be on my side of the computer to know if I editted something.

 

When you quote yourself and leave out the part that undermines your entire argument, that is an edit. When the post you are chopping up is on the previous page, that's just stupid.
And since we are discussing this very thing on the other thread, that makes this post of yours completely disingenuous.

 

If it was dishonest, it could be proven. I'm not going to quote my entire post, thats what your back button is for. Anyway, I think I posted to you concerning your view on the other thread of 1 sam.

 

That's ok. I quoted your full post. Dishonesty confirmed.
Move along.

 

if you quoted my whole post then it wasn't editted so not dishonest.

 

I don't agree with your comment. Government has gone out of its way to eliminate religion from the public eye.

I agree that government should not impose religious requirements on anyone. Allowing religious practice on government property by government employees or civilian entities is not recognizing or having preference for any one religion, UNLESS some religions are excluded. Displaying a creche or a cross should be acceptable so long as the Star of David, the practice of Islam or Buddhism, Hinduism et al are also allowed.

 

It was edited when YOU quoted it, but not when I did. Why are you trying to obfuscate what you clearly know you did? Where is the honor in that?

 

Boys! Stop it!

 

So is everybody that doesn't quote a whole post somehow being dishonest, in your eyes?