Slatten,
By posting only the 2nd half of my written thought, you neglected to include the entire first half of what was intended to be one sentence... I inadvertently hit the period rather than comma, however reading through this:
"I did not post this information with any intent of discussing evolution versus Creationism, however, I believe that [b]your posted editorial of reference;/b] went straight to the heart of the matter. Slatten, with the smuggest, most condescending declaration of sublimely superior truth twisting imaginable."
By quoting only my last phrase (whether to be devious, deceitful and duplicitous), or because you failed to recognize a complete thought, you have created the impression that my intended sentence was incomplete?
Why would you do that?
By omitting my beginning, you also availed yourself of the privilege of concealing my obvious understanding that the paragraphs I found demeaning were not of your composition, as I would expect nothing original of you once you meander outside the slapstick comedy of "chit-chat."
Again, I did not accuse you of being smug, arrogant and condescending, though you may very well be;
I accessed the link you provided, and my remarks were aimed at your referenced post, AS I SAID.
What a completely ignorant discussion to be having.
I've spent forty years in Comparative Religion, Slatten, and have studied the doctrines and founders of most of the world's major religions and cults.
I never condemn individuals, only doctrines. Those who are trapped by false religious leaders, and their cultic dogmas and doctrines are to be prayed for.
There is a profound difference.
I will never understand why so many can not separate the individual from their professed beliefs. Anyone can change their beliefs at will,if given the background, and motivation of it's founder.
The subject phrase of the sentence was within the two phrases above which you neglected to post. The ending phrase which you managed to post "solo" was the predicate phrase.
Really, that is your artificially created concern?
FYI, within my extended family, is a native of Kodiak Island off the Alaskan coast who participates in rituals deifying the Earth Goddess. There are Baptists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Evangelicals, and those who abstain.
I have, thus far, managed not to stone any of them.
I believe we have a mutual failure to communicate.
I have no animosity toward you, though I believe you just did a little twisting of facts to facilitate accusing me of a failure in punctuation.
Irritating I may be, stupid I am not.
Let me add a final thought; I don't give a rat's posterior about Grammar 101. There are far more important things to consider.
(Added by Edit)
My son-in-law, whom I love dearly, was raised Catholic, his parents are still Catholic.
He does not attend the Catholic church, but attends a mainline Protestant church with my daughter and grandchildren.
I reiterate, I oppose anti-Biblical doctrines, and not people.
[quote=slatten49]Zemirah,
Quote:
"Slatten, with the smuggest, most condescending declaration of sublimely superior truth twisting imaginable."
It was amusing to read from one as smug, arrogant and condescending as you appear at times accusing another of being the same. Notwithstanding your comment, my post was simply a link followed by a cut'n paste excerpt from it. Your sensitivity to expressed beliefs that stray from your own is evident. Personally, I realize there are various Faiths from which to choose in showing respect, without buying necessarily into any or all of them.
BTW, please, in my quote of you above: "Slatten, with the smuggest, most condescending declaration of sublimely superior truth twisting imaginable," what was your predicate to be for subject 'Slatten' in your failed attempt at a complete sentence
Lastly, Zemirah, neither the link nor the excerpt consisted of my words, but Tesla's. And, despite what you may think or believe, the intent of my post was to show that religion and science can/do co-exist.
"Slatten, with the smuggest, most condescen... (
show quote)