In a message dated 8/8/01 11:12:44 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
> >Your last post to
> > George Murphy had the tone of a teenager bragging to his friends about how
> > stupid his little sister is. George Murphy probably has some things wrong
> > (as we all do), but he is not stupid.
> I never called him stupid, and if he looked so to you, I would suggest the
> cause to be his own obstinant rejection of the rather obvious destruction of
> his argument.
As a former U.S. President would have said, "Well ... there you go again."
Whether or not you use the word "stupid" (I don't think you did), accusations
of, for example, obstinately rejecting the obvious have the tone I was
A crackpot thinks all his own opinions are obvious truths and immediately
labels anybody who disagrees as obstinate, blind, stupid, etc. To the extent
you express yourself that way, you will appear to be a crackpot, even if you
> BTW -- do you acknowledge that he never even attempted to defend my fatal
> attack on his fundamental argument?
Fatal is in the eyes of the beholder; I think you were in part talking past
each other. Whether it is a legitimate exercise to extract mathematical
patterns not just from the words of Scripture as they were originally written
(which many would already consider dubious on various theological grounds),
but also from the arbitrary things humans have done to Scripture since then
(such as grouping of books or verse divisions), is a fair question. Your
repeated loud assertion that this must be OK because you think you have found
a pattern does not settle the question. The question is probably worth
discussing in a graceful, rational, theologically informed way. I am not
optimistic that that will happen in this case, based on the tone you have
adopted so far and that still managed to surface several times in your
attempt at contrition (which I should add is appreciated and was
appropriately gracious in some places).
A followup message from Richard said:
> Have you ever seen "The Princess Bride?"
> Sometimes I feel like the Cicilian ... :)
If you are referring to the character I think you are (it's been a long time
since I saw it), that is not a bad analogy. Not exactly a role model. So is
it "INCONCEIVABLE" to you that you might be mistaken about God placing this
hidden structure in Scripture? ;-)
Dr. Allan H. Harvey, Boulder, Colorado | SteamDoc@aol.com
"Any opinions expressed here are mine, and should not be
attributed to my employer, my wife, or my cats"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 09 2001 - 20:17:06 EDT