Investigating the roots of western civilization (ye olde BC&H forum of IIDB lives on...)
https://earlywritings.com/forum/
Oh, so the subject does interest you then?spin wrote: You're the one asserting that it doesn't interest me
spin wrote: I don't know why you feel you can assume it is of interest that someone in the 1940s made such an assertion or what relevance it would have to anyone here.
You've already told me three times it does not. And of course you should know.bskeptic wrote:Oh, so the subject does interest you then?spin wrote: You're the one asserting that it doesn't interest me
Why could you assume it was of interest to anyone here? Are you prepared to respond now? After your initial post you've been anything but transparent. Do you want to start again and speak to the o.p. or do you want to forget about it and dance like a butterfly and sting like a bee?bskeptic wrote:spin wrote: I don't know why you feel you can assume it is of interest that someone in the 1940s made such an assertion or what relevance it would have to anyone here.
I was just going off your own words. Have I misunderstood you?spin wrote: You've already told me three times it does not. And of course you should know.
You appear to be doubting that the OP is of interest. So do you personally find the OP of interest or not? Yes or No?spin wrote: I don't know why you feel you can assume it is of interest that someone in the 1940s made such an assertion or what relevance it would have to anyone here.
Maybe riffing off my words.bskeptic wrote:I was just going off your own words.spin wrote: You've already told me three times it does not. And of course you should know.
Isn't it a bit late to ask that?bskeptic wrote:Have I misunderstood you?
I showed interest in the o.p. when I first responded to it. But the only thing I've learned from you is that you may not have presented the o.p. in a clear manner. You didn't respond to the content of that post other than to tell me where my interests don't lie. Perhaps if you responded to less defensively you might make a conversation out of it yet.bskeptic wrote:You appear to be doubting that the OP is of interest. So do you personally find the OP of interest or not? Yes or No?spin wrote: I don't know why you feel you can assume it is of interest that someone in the 1940s made such an assertion or what relevance it would have to anyone here.
This seems consistent with Eusebius of Caesarea, who wrote in Chapter 31, Book 12 of his Evangelical Preparation:bskeptic wrote:Lewis is correct. While anthropomorphic language may fall short of explaining a God that is far beyond us it is the best language we can find for humans are the most “god-like” figures in creation. When we attempt to venture away from anthropomorphic language toward something that sounds “deeper” and more philosophical we may find that we are speaking of a depersonalized deity that is more of an oblong glob than a god.
If you're interested in the OP issue, then I don't have a clue why you are saying:spin wrote: I showed interest in the o.p. when I first responded to it. But the only thing I've learned from you is that you may not have presented the o.p. in a clear manner.
Jeez, how long are you going to avoid dealing with it? Why do you feel you can assume it is of interest that someone in the 1940s made such an assertion or what relevance it would have to anyone here? There. I've shown interest in the o.p. yet again. Can you answer the question?bskeptic wrote:If you're interested in the OP issue, then I don't have a clue why you are saying:spin wrote: I showed interest in the o.p. when I first responded to it. But the only thing I've learned from you is that you may not have presented the o.p. in a clear manner.
"I don't know why you feel you can assume it is of interest that someone in the 1940s made such an assertion or what relevance it would have to anyone here."
I guess it's of interest to you and of relevance to you!
I don't know what your position even is. Do you find the OP issue to be of interest or not?spin wrote:Jeez, how long are you going to avoid dealing with it? Why do you feel you can assume it is of interest that someone in the 1940s made such an assertion or what relevance it would have to anyone here? There. I've shown interest in the o.p. yet again. Can you answer the question?bskeptic wrote:If you're interested in the OP issue, then I don't have a clue why you are saying:spin wrote: I showed interest in the o.p. when I first responded to it. But the only thing I've learned from you is that you may not have presented the o.p. in a clear manner.
"I don't know why you feel you can assume it is of interest that someone in the 1940s made such an assertion or what relevance it would have to anyone here."
I guess it's of interest to you and of relevance to you!
You aren't answering my simple question.spin wrote:If you can't answer a simple question, I guess you're just not that interested.