Hector-Neri Castaneda Saves Omniscience

In your view anon, what would the statement I had made there invoke or infer so far as any consternation on his part?

Not sure, Litenin. I was just clarifying Shotgun’s “naturalist” comment.

One more question then, is there anything inherently wrong with the above statement?

No, it strikes me as true. But Shotgun might not be interested in that, at least in this thread. I don’t know. I just thought Felix missed what the “naturalist” comment was about. That’s all I’m doing here. :slight_smile:

Ah ok. Thanks anon. :slight_smile:

Maybe he thinks anyone who doesn’t think like him is a naturalist.

To Lightening,

The reason this thread was brought up again, is because I recently linked to it in another thread that touches on similar issues. (viewtopic.php?f=5&t=174701&start=25 ) That is (presumably) why James S. Saint posted on this thread again.

To Painfull:

Nothing you’ve said has any relevance to the article I wrote. I’d be happy to discuss Christendom with you elsewhere…especially since it seems you’re unaware of the history concerning various theological doctrines.

To Anon:

Thank you for actually reading what was said.

How could it not be relevant when I was responding to your bald assertion to “Give the Christianity of antique Europeans a chance. It’s consistent…coherent…and most importantly, true!”

Ergo, you brought it up…with an exclamation point no less! What is your definition of apologetics, debate and discussion, you assert and we’re allowed to respond as long as we agree? Sounds like the continuation of a 2000 year old policy (+/- given the age of a particular revealed religion)–"It’s true because I say it is.

My mistake.