Embrace Judeo-Christian culture and values! Is this politician serious?

by Greatest I am Sun Feb 08, 2015 2:17 am

First topic message reminder :

Embrace Judeo-Christian culture and values! Is this politician serious?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=H2ED8A8RXeY

The apostle’s creed shows that Christianity is based on having to embrace barbaric human sacrifice and the notion that the guilty should be forgiven if a suitable human sacrifice is made to God.

I suggest that having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral. Immoral regardless of the victim volunteering or not which is not the case with Jesus.

That is one of many moral tenets that have caused secular governments to reject Judeo-Christian culture and values.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dx7irFN2gdI

The bible is a compilation of evil acts by a satanic God and no moral man would every push to have Judeo-Christian culture and values implemented as our law. The U.S. is the closes to that ideal and their jail statistics are the most dismal in the free world.

Would you promote Judeo-Christian culture and values?

Regards
DL

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Mar 06, 2015 4:57 pm

Greatest I am wrote:nowhere have I said that the gay gene is passed on

Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Really?

by Greatest I am Today at 3:04 pm wrote:"Either an unexpressed gay gene is passed down"
Regards
DL

It's on this page??? I think you've even confounded yourself now.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Mar 06, 2015 5:04 pm

Greatest I am wrote:Stop making absurd statement based on what I have not said. Nowhere have I said that gays cannot reproduce Regards
DL

Care to show a post where I have claimed you said this? You need to calm down and read more carefully GIA. Your claim was that an inherited gay gene could threaten the future of the human species if there were enough gay people.

To recap, the problems are as follows:

1. You have no evidence that homosexuality is genetic, or hereditary.
2. If it's inherited then obviously the only way the numbers of gay people could increase is for gay people to have more children.
3. If 2 were consistent then your argument defeats itself, as gay people would be having more children....

by polyglide Fri Mar 06, 2015 5:05 pm

Dr. Sheldon,
I was asked by a poster what made me tick and why I aswered in a certain way.

As I was nat able to do so by a private post I will do so now.

I first of all consider everything involved, then I attempt to acertain the agenda of the opposition and their ability to understand and at what level.

I came to the conclusion that the majority of those opposed to Christianity, were heathens whose main form of approach was blasphamy, intollerance and predudice.

It is difficult to get to that low level in retaliation.

However,, one can but try.

by polyglide Fri Mar 06, 2015 5:08 pm

Dr Sheldon,
I cannot se how homosexuality comes into this matter at all.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Mar 06, 2015 5:12 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr. Sheldon, I came to the conclusion that the majority of those opposed to Christianity, were heathens whose main form of approach was blasphamy, intollerance and predudice. It is difficult to get to that low level in retaliation.However,, one can but try.

So your ban is over and two posts in you're back to insulting everyone who disagrees with your superstitious beliefs, this is not an argument or debate, nor is it remotely salient to the thread OP. This is childish nonsense in short, now either join the discussion or don't, but leave the petty name calling alone there's a good chap.

Since you've set the agenda here it's blasphemy not blasphamy (sic), and intolerance only has one l, and it's prejudice not predudice (sic). If trying to reach a low level of debate is what your post was attempting I'm pretty sure it's succeeded on a number of levels. Are we supposed to be impressed that you have no cogent response except to insult those that disagree with you?

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Mar 06, 2015 5:20 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr Sheldon,
I cannot se how homosexuality comes into this matter at all.

Then allow me to elucidate for you. The thread title is a question "Embrace Judeo-Christian culture and values! Is this politician serious?" The question hinges on the premise of whether the teachings and dogma within those religions is morally just. Since the religions in question contain homophobic bigotry in their texts, and it's endemic throughout their history then that is directly salient to the thread topic.

by polyglide Fri Mar 06, 2015 5:34 pm

Dr. Sheldon,
Give me one item of my post that you can deny on all that is involved.

I can give you all the past posts that are conclusive, ridiculing the Bible, ridiculing God treating using the Lords name in vain etc.

Had you done so regarding the Koran, you would either be locked up or on a hit list.

If you cannot stand the truth then get out of the kitchen.

by polyglide Fri Mar 06, 2015 5:37 pm

Dr. Sheldon,
Give me one item of my post that you can deny on all that is involved.

I can give you all the past posts that are conclusive, ridiculing the Bible, ridiculing God treating using the Lords name in vain etc.

Had you done so regarding the Koran, you would either be locked up or on a hit list.

If you cannot stand the truth then get out of the kitchen.

by polyglide Fri Mar 06, 2015 5:41 pm

Dr. Sheldon,
Give me one item of my post that you can deny on all that is involved.

I can give you all the past posts that are conclusive, ridiculing the Bible, ridiculing God, using the Lords name in vain etc.

Had anyone done so regarding the Koran, they would either be locked up or on a hit list.

If you cannot stand the truth then get out of the kitchen.

by polyglide Fri Mar 06, 2015 5:43 pm

Dr. Sheldon,
Give me one item of my post that you can deny on all that is involved.

I can give you all the past posts that are conclusive, ridiculing the Bible, ridiculing God, using the Lords name in vain etc.

Had anyone done so regarding the Koran, they would either be locked up or on a hit list.

If you cannot stand the truth then get out of the kitchen.

by polyglide Fri Mar 06, 2015 5:45 pm

Dr. Sheldon,
Give me one item of my post that you can deny on all that is involved.

I can give you all the past posts that are conclusive, ridiculing the Bible, ridiculing God, using the Lords name in vain etc.

Had anyone done so regarding the Koran, they would either be locked up or on a hit list.

If you cannot stand the truth then get out of the kitchen.

by polyglide Fri Mar 06, 2015 5:49 pm

Dr. Sheldon,
Give me one item of my post that you can deny on all that is involved.

I can give you all the past posts that are conclusive, ridiculing the Bible, ridiculing God, using the Lords name in vain etc.

Had anyone done so regarding the Koran, they would either be locked up or on a hit list.

If you cannot stand the truth then get out of the kitchen.

by polyglide Fri Mar 06, 2015 5:52 pm

Dr. Sheldon,
Give me one item of my post that you can deny on all that is involved.

I can give you all the past posts that are conclusive, ridiculing the Bible, ridiculing God, using the Lords name in vain etc.

Had anyone done so regarding the Koran, they would either be locked up or on a hit list.

If you cannot stand the truth then get out of the kitchen.

by polyglide Fri Mar 06, 2015 6:02 pm

Dr. Sheldon,
Give me one item of my post that you can deny on all that is involved.

I can give you all the past posts that are conclusive, ridiculing the Bible, ridiculing God, using the Lords name in vain etc.

Had anyone done so regarding the Koran, they would either be locked up or on a hit list.

If you cannot stand the truth then get out of the kitchen.

I have said previously my thoughts regarding homosexuality and I seperate the person from the subject.

I have several homosexual friends and feel the same about them as hetrosexual friends.

I do not believe homosexuality offers anything to society as a whole but then nor does many other activities.

As every religion I am aware of denounces it as not desirable, I feel there must be a reason for involving it in religion at all, the reason I know not.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Mar 06, 2015 6:23 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr. Sheldon,
Give me one item of my post that you can deny on all that is involved.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:What does that even mean?

I can give you all the past posts that are conclusive, ridiculing the Bible, ridiculing God treating using the Lords name in vain etc.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Again I have no idea what point you're trying to make here, you're not being very coherent, try constructing lucid sentences in a proper paragraph instead of double line breaks after every sentence and you might produce a cogent point that we can follow.

Had you done so regarding the Koran, you would either be locked up or on a hit list.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Had I done what regarding the Koran? It's a fiction, a fairytale, a collection of myths, just like the bible, and I have never said otherwise. The fact that some theists think they can crush critical comment of their beliefs with threats of violence is very sad, but no different to Christian behaviour throughout it's history.

If you cannot stand the truth then get out of the kitchen.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Trite rhetoric, and since it's unclear what you're claiming or what evidence you have for the claim I'm afraid it represents your usual risible apologetics. Again I have to point out that not one word of that post is in any way salient to the thread OP., and this after you questioned what relevance homosexuality had, and I went to the trouble to spell it out even though it should have been obvious must indicate the stark contrast between your approach to what you think is debate, and the approach of others.

You made no proper argument beyond rhetoric and insult, as for blasphemy well it doesn't exist. Luckily civilised societies base their laws on basic human rights and the right to freedom of speech and expression is the cornerstone of such rights and freedoms.

by polyglide Fri Mar 06, 2015 6:47 pm

Dr. Sheldon,
You are so wrapped up in attempting to prove you have reasonable appreciation of the English written word that you lose any crediblility.

Not once do you actually reply in a manner that answers a point, you go into, inane, ignoble, otiose, impercipient, and impecunious replies that and nothing is ever in vertu.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Mar 06, 2015 6:49 pm

polyglide wrote:I have several homosexual friends and feel the same about them as hetrosexual friends.

Don't be absurd that would mean you think your heterosexual friends are abnormal unnatural perverts, which is how you have repeatedly described gay people. Dear oh dear.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Mar 06, 2015 6:52 pm

polyglide wrote:I have several homosexual friends and feel the same about them as hetrosexual friends.I do not believe homosexuality offers anything to society as a whole.

So you're claiming you don't think heterosexuality offers anything to society as a whole? This is priceless.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Mar 06, 2015 6:54 pm

polyglide wrote:I have several homosexual friends and feel the same about them as hetrosexual friends.I do not believe homosexuality offers anything to society as a whole.

So you're claiming you don't think heterosexuality offers anything to society as a whole? This is priceless.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Mar 06, 2015 9:10 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr. Sheldon,
You are so wrapped up in attempting to prove you have reasonable appreciation of the English written word that you lose any crediblility.

Not once do you actually reply in a manner that answers a point, you go into, inane, ignoble, otiose, impercipient, and impecunious replies that and nothing is ever in vertu.

That is quite possibly the funniest post yet, and I'd bet my life savings that if you lived to be a 1000 you'd not grasp why? Laughing

by snowyflake Fri Mar 06, 2015 9:59 pm

Greatest I am wrote:
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:Most gay people tend not to have children, for obvious reasons, now since you're determined to speculate without proper evidence here, I'd speculate that since genes are inherited then this fact doesn't appear to support your premise about homosexuality being genetic. So in the absence of any real evidence perhaps it's best not to speculate. I'm not sure what you mean by "Both conditions are natural even if not particularly desirable, in the case of gays," but all the research shows that being gay is not a condition, and calling being gay undesirable is frankly a little offensive. There is a great deal of evidence to suggest that homosexuality has developed as some sort of evolutionary mechanism to limit conflict for mates in populations that have unequal gender populations.

Not reproducing and maintaining the population, if being gay was widespread, would definitely be an unwelcomed condition as then we would go extinct. That is why being gay, like having a heart problem is not particularly desirable. As to gays coming from the general population, sure. Either an unexpressed gay gene is passed down or BNA damage happens in the womb. There can be no other options unless gayness pops up out of nowhere. This is a firm logic trail.

Regards
DL

How do you know being gay is not desirable in evolutionary terms? Just because it occurs at a low level in the population doesn't mean it's undesirable or unnecessary. We don't understand the reasons why it exists in the first place but whatever the reason it's not harming anyone or humanity or society so calling it 'undesirable' or 'unwelcome' is offensive. This is the kind of language that arises from religious fanatics who think homosexuality is a 'sin'. I expect this kind of garbage from polyglide but I thought you were an enlightened chap. Your logic trail isn't underpinned by any scientific evidence.

by Greatest I am Fri Mar 06, 2015 10:16 pm

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:
Greatest I am wrote:nowhere have I said that the gay gene is passed on

Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Really?

by Greatest I am Today at 3:04 pm wrote:"Either an unexpressed gay gene is passed down"
Regards
DL

It's on this page??? I think you've even confounded yourself now.

"unexpressed"

Science has yet to determine just when gayness comes about. They do know that its is expressed in DNA but I have yet to read that they know when or how the gene for gayness is turned on.

I am done with the gay issue because my focus is morality and not the mechanics of it.

Let's move on.

Regards
DL

by Greatest I am Fri Mar 06, 2015 10:22 pm

polyglide wrote:

I do not believe homosexuality offers anything to society as a whole but then nor does many other activities.

.

The gentleman that broke the German code in WWII was gay.

Do you see ending WWII as a worthy contribution of a gay man?

BTW, he committed suicide later because of bigots who did not believe homosexuality offered anything to society as a whole.

Regards
DL

by Greatest I am Fri Mar 06, 2015 10:36 pm

snowyflake wrote:
Greatest I am wrote:
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:Most gay people tend not to have children, for obvious reasons, now since you're determined to speculate without proper evidence here, I'd speculate that since genes are inherited then this fact doesn't appear to support your premise about homosexuality being genetic. So in the absence of any real evidence perhaps it's best not to speculate. I'm not sure what you mean by "Both conditions are natural even if not particularly desirable, in the case of gays," but all the research shows that being gay is not a condition, and calling being gay undesirable is frankly a little offensive. There is a great deal of evidence to suggest that homosexuality has developed as some sort of evolutionary mechanism to limit conflict for mates in populations that have unequal gender populations.

Not reproducing and maintaining the population, if being gay was widespread, would definitely be an unwelcomed condition as then we would go extinct. That is why being gay, like having a heart problem is not particularly desirable. As to gays coming from the general population, sure. Either an unexpressed gay gene is passed down or BNA damage happens in the womb. There can be no other options unless gayness pops up out of nowhere. This is a firm logic trail.

Regards
DL

How do you know being gay is not desirable in evolutionary terms? Just because it occurs at a low level in the population doesn't mean it's undesirable or unnecessary. We don't understand the reasons why it exists in the first place but whatever the reason it's not harming anyone or humanity or society so calling it 'undesirable' or 'unwelcome' is offensive. This is the kind of language that arises from religious fanatics who think homosexuality is a 'sin'. I expect this kind of garbage from polyglide but I thought you were an enlightened chap. Your logic trail isn't underpinned by any scientific evidence.

I gave this to Dr. S. above.

"being gay is no more undesirable"

When I form a conclusion as I have done here, I try to think of the many and the few.

If we are many, then being gay or not does not really matter so the condition I would call benign and not worthy of thought.

If we were on an island with gayness taking over a population, then it would be disastrous.

That is why I call it a condition.

Regards
DL
-------------------

That last should have read undesirable condition.

Are you a parent?

What would you prefer, a gay child or a straight one?

Do you want a child who is more likely to pass on their genes or would you prefer a child who is gay and less likely to pass on their genes?

I am a parent and although I would hope to love a gay child as much as the straight children that I have, I prefer that any child would have all the choices available to him.

Your answer to the simple questions above are key.

I do not discriminate against the gay condition but I do not think it is the best condition for any child or any genetic or family line that wants to continue.

Regards
DL

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Mar 06, 2015 10:37 pm

Greatest I am wrote:Science has yet to determine just when gayness comes about. They do know that its is expressed in DNA
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Do they? Could you link the peer reviewed research for that please.

I am done with the gay issue because my focus is morality and not the mechanics of it.

Regards
DL

That's not how debate works I'm afraid, Polyglide thinks he can tell people what to talk about as well. Besides it is germane to the thread you started, as Judeo-Christian religions all have a long history of homophobic prejudice.

by Greatest I am Fri Mar 06, 2015 10:43 pm

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:
Greatest I am wrote:Science has yet to determine just when gayness comes about. They do know that its is expressed in DNA
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Do they? Could you link the peer reviewed research for that please.

I am done with the gay issue because my focus is morality and not the mechanics of it.

Regards
DL

That's not how debate works I'm afraid, Polyglide thinks he can tell people what to talk about as well. Besides it is germane to the thread you started, as Judeo-Christian religions all have a long history of homophobic prejudice.

No argument.

That is the moral issue I speak to and where an end can be found.

Science has yet to catch up to the cause of gayness other than it's expression through our DNA as the controller of everything about us. No other end point is possible and that is why we are going nowhere.

Regards
DL

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Mar 06, 2015 10:47 pm

Greatest I am wrote: If we are many, then being gay or not does not really matter so the condition I would call benign and not worthy of thought. If we were on an island with gayness taking over a population, then it would be disastrous. That is why I call it a condition.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Homosexuality is not a condition.

"Since the 1970s, the consensus of the behavioral and social sciences and the health and mental health professions globally is that homosexuality is a normal variation of human sexual orientation. In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder. The American Psychological Association Council of Representatives followed in 1975. Thereafter other major mental health organizations followed and it was finally declassified by the World Health Organization in 1990. The current research and clinical literature demonstrate that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are normal and positive variations of human sexuality, reflecting the official positions of the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association."

Greatest I amAre you a parent? What would you prefer, a gay child or a straight one? Do you want a child who is more likely to pass on their genes or would you prefer a child who is gay and less likely to pass on their genes?
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:I find this deeply offensive, and as long as the child was happy and healthy I'd not care. I certainly find the idea that if any of my grandchildren happened to be gay I'd love them less or find it "undesirable" not just offensive but ludicrous.

Greatest I amI am a parent and although I would hope to love a gay child as much as the straight children that I have. I do not discriminate against the gay condition but I do not think it is the best condition for any child or any genetic or family line that wants to continue.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Being gay is not a condition, and you are discriminating right here.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Mar 06, 2015 10:50 pm

Greatest I am wrote: Science has yet to catch up to the cause of gayness other than it's expression through our DNA as the controller of everything about us. No other end point is possible and that is why we are going nowhere.

I have yet to see you show any evidence that homosexuality is genetic, you simply keep claiming that everything about us is determined by our genes, which isn't evidence just a repetition of the claim.

by snowyflake Sat Mar 07, 2015 10:26 am

Greatest I Am wrote:Are you a parent? What would you prefer, a gay child or a straight one? Do you want a child who is more likely to pass on their genes or would you prefer a child who is gay and less likely to pass on their genes?

I would think as a parent your primary desire for your children is that THEY (not you) would be happy and to live a productive, fulfilled life. Of course, grandchildren would be ideal but these days a gay couple can have children through artificial means that ensures passing on genes.

Is it more important that your children are taught to be kind, caring, considerate citizens or is their sexual orientation more important? I think you have to examine your own personal feelings about this. I might be wrong but your language suggests that you do harbour some prejudices about this issue.

The bottom line is it doesn't matter what sexual orientation someone is and in evolutionary terms it wouldn't affect a population since the prevalence is always very low.

by polyglide Sat Mar 07, 2015 10:37 am

Greatest I am,
I am talking about the actual condition and not the person involved. I use the word condition because I can think of no other way of expressing it.

Of course there are homosexuals who offer vastly different benifits to society, I have homosexual friends who are great entertainers who would be missed, however, that is not the point in question.

by polyglide Sat Mar 07, 2015 10:50 am

DR. Sheldon,
You must be the best example on the site to prove how dim a linguist you are.

I treat homosexuals as human beings, exactly as hetrosexuals, as human beings, anything else involved between the two is a different matter

I would just learn to read what is actually written and not what you think is implied, before making indiotic remarks.

by polyglide Sat Mar 07, 2015 10:59 am

Dr, Sheldon,
Let me also put you in the picture regarding the powers and ability of God regarding Christianity.

God is all seeing and all powerful.

This does not mean he can see events that have happened at a later date.

It means, as anyone with common sense can do, see what would happen under certain circumstances, in the future.

I, or anyone with common sense could predict, that if you built a house of straw and it set on fire it would burn, so it would be advisable to use something else.

What you think you are as a linguist, is lost in your lack of common sense.

by snowyflake Sat Mar 07, 2015 12:19 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
Let me also put you in the picture regarding the powers and ability of God regarding Christianity.

God is all seeing and all powerful.

This does not mean he can see events that have happened at a later date.

It means, as anyone with common sense can do, see what would happen under certain circumstances, in the future.

I, or anyone with common sense could predict, that if you built a house of straw and it set on fire it would burn, so it would be advisable to use something else.

What you think you are as a linguist, is lost in your lack of common sense.

Actually Doc demonstrates impeccable common sense and he uses evidence and facts to underpin his arguments whereas you use faith, beliefs and other mumbo jumbo to underpin your arguments. Evidence and facts are a darn sight more reliable than beliefs, opinions or faith wouldn't you say?

by snowyflake Sat Mar 07, 2015 12:22 pm

polyglide wrote:Greatest I am,
I am talking about the actual condition and not the person involved. I use the word condition because I can think of no other way of expressing it.

Of course there are homosexuals who offer vastly different benifits to society, I have homosexual friends who are great entertainers who would be missed, however, that is not the point in question.

Have you told your homosexual friends how you feel about them? Not sure I would want you for a friend if I were gay and you held that opinion about gay people. I have gay friends as well and I wouldn't want to change them for the world. They happen to be living in an age where they are accepted and loved and protected by the law from religious and other forms of bigotry. About time too.

Would you change your friends?

by Norm Deplume Sat Mar 07, 2015 12:32 pm

polyglide wrote:
Let me also put you in the picture regarding the powers and ability of God regarding Christianity.

God is all seeing and all powerful.
This does not mean he can see events that have happened at a later date.

I think you mean "will happen", not "have happened".

polyglide wrote:
It means, as anyone with common sense can do, see what would happen under certain circumstances, in the future.

It also means that there are no prophecies, only a few good guesses. Moreover, if God does not have perfect knowledge of future events (as many Christians believe, though not you) then he cannot know whether his plans will work or not. This might explain the stories in the OT where the master plan goes wrong, God blames anyone but himself and throws a temper tantrum.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat Mar 07, 2015 2:32 pm

polyglide wrote:Greatest I am,
I am talking about the actual condition and not the person involved. I use the word condition because I can think of no other way of expressing it.

Of course there are homosexuals who offer vastly different benifits to society, I have homosexual friends who are great entertainers who would be missed, however, that is not the point in question.

"Friends"

Have you ever told these "friends" how prejudiced you are against them? That you think they're unnatural, abnormal perverts, as you stated on here more than once?

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat Mar 07, 2015 2:35 pm

polyglide wrote:DR. Sheldon,
You must be the best example on the site to prove how dim a linguist you are.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:You've been repeatedly warned about your propensity to indulge pointless and childish ad hominem, so cut it out there's a good chap.

I treat homosexuals as human beings, exactly as hetrosexuals, as human beings, anything else involved between the two is a different matter
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Human beings you think are perverted deviants, unnatural and abnormal. These are your words so throwing a tantrum when they're pointed out is rather silly. As is claiming you think gay people are the same as heterosexuals, when you've spent pages claiming the opposite.

I would just learn to read what is actually written and not what you think is implied, before making indiotic remarks.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat Mar 07, 2015 2:39 pm

polyglide wrote:DR. Sheldon,
You must be the best example on the site to prove how dim a linguist you are.

I treat homosexuals as human beings, exactly as hetrosexuals, as human beings, anything else involved between the two is a different matter

I would just learn to read what is actually written and not what you think is implied, before making indiotic remarks.

Here's a tip champ, if you're going to constantly question the intelligence of everyone who disagrees with you then learn to spell, and improve your execrable grammar. Then you might not look as indiotic (sic) as you do when you resort to these childish petty insults. Oh, and it's heterosexual, not hetrosexual, but then I don't have your superior linguistic skills of course. Hilarious stuff again, well done.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat Mar 07, 2015 2:50 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
Let me also put you in the picture regarding the powers and ability of God regarding Christianity.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:God doesn't exist.

God is all seeing and all powerful.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:No he isn't.

This does not mean he can see events that have happened at a later date.That is precisely what omniscient means. I see we can add omniscient to the long list of words whose meaning you haven't a clue about. I'll try the Oxford English dictionary again, though I don't hold much hope of it making an impact on this new language you're inventing.

Oxford English dictionary:
Omniscient
adjective

"Knowing everything"

It means, as anyone with common sense can do, see what would happen under certain circumstances, in the future.I, or anyone with common sense could predict, that if you built a house of straw and it set on fire it would burn, so it would be advisable to use something else.

Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Anyone able to translate this into English for me? If a being is omniscient it knows EVERYTHING so claiming that there are things it doesn't or can't know directly contradicts the claim. I have read fairly nuanced and complex arguments from theists who try to use clever semantics to avoid this logical paradox, but they simply don't work. Your claim is so bluntly over simplistic and obviously erroneous that it's laughably stupid.

What you think you are as a linguist, is lost in your lack of common sense.

Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:What on earth are you talking about? Seriously is this some sort of wind up? Are you trying to be ironic?

[/quote]

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat Mar 07, 2015 2:53 pm

polyglide wrote:DR. Sheldon,
You must be the best example on the site to prove how dim a linguist you are.

Seriously, did everyone else laugh as hard as I did when they read this? He MUST be pretending mustn't he? Surely?

by snowyflake Sat Mar 07, 2015 3:44 pm

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:
polyglide wrote:DR. Sheldon,
You must be the best example on the site to prove how dim a linguist you are.

Seriously, did everyone else laugh as hard as I did when they read this? He MUST be pretending mustn't he? Surely?

Still snarfing, Doc Smile

by Sponsored content