I could give you the answer, but you won't like it. Believe me.
Posted on 07/09/2012 4:28:17 PM PDT by Gillibrand
“...can still recite “the sucipiot”.
.
No you can’t — it is the sucipiAt.
Perhaps you should go back to basics and recite the Confiteor.
I believe that all of that history is rooted in some degree of fact...that whole leap to God’s son is where I’m having some continuity issues.
maybe I should...good lord, I spelled it wrong...but I CAN still recite it. Give me a phone number and I’ll call you and recite it.
Oh Great. Thanks a lot. Now everyone will know. You were supposed to keep this type of info under your hat.
I think not.....or Sodom and Gomorrah would still be around.
“....I agree that Jesus is the greatest liberal ever.”
.
Nope.
I don’t think that there is one liberal in the whole world who is willing to be crucified for the truth.
To a liberal, the truth goes into many different directions simultaneously.
I don’t know, I wasn’t there. The only info I have is over 2000 years old.
Thassalright. Bless you.
Actually, that is not quite what it means, if we are going by 'definition'. If we are going by YOUR understanding, then at least make that clear.
Possibly you could achieve more by asking Agnostic what he means by the term, instead of trying to tell him what it means.
Um, my question was not how moral you are. My question was what sequence of logic determines for you the right way to live when you are uncertain whether God exists. I don’t mean to be a pest, and if you don’t want to answer, that’s fine. It’s up to you.
Peace,
SR
OOPS. Don’t know how I did it, but I put AGNOSTIC in the TO: line and apparently someone is a FR user named AGNOSTIC.
My apologies, I meant to have GORUSH in the TO: line of post 49.
God exists or he doesn’t. I deal with the evidence available...and I just don’t know in spite of my extensive efforts...and I’m happy to respond.
Obviously you didn’t read what I said.
Good luck.
As one of our greatest presidents said, "trust but verify."
At MOST, only one of them would be right. Seems pretty presumptuous to me.
No, not presumptuous. Western civilization, based upon Judeao-Christian tenets, has accomplished more in 2000 years (by any/all measures), than all belief systems in 10,000 years combined.
Again, I wish you well on your journey.
5.56mm
I know. I was just pulling your leg, mainly because you all jumped on GORUSH because he said he's agnostic.
I get the impression 'you all' don't really understand what the term 'agnostic' means.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
My understanding of the term is, of course, what I use. I just don’t know if there is, or is not, a god...or God, if you like. I mean no disrespect. I’d like to know but I don’t. But then, I hold myself to very strict logical standards.
What about the creation of the universe—an event during which the laws of physics as we know them were nonexistent.
This seems just as strange or unusual as the history of God’s Son.
Considering there is much disagreement about 'history', logic says no once source is probably 'the absolute truth'. Better to sort the wheat from the chaff for yourself.
A self avowed agnostic is a strange person to pose that question to.
I could give you the answer, but you won't like it. Believe me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.