From: Walter Hicks (wallyshoes@mindspring.com)
Date: Tue Nov 04 2003 - 02:02:35 EST
richard@biblewheel.com wrote:
>
> Ok Walt, I will grant (for the sake of argument, though I find it impossible
> to believe) that my work may be over your head.
You fail to understand that not all people think alike. You are obviously quite
visual and I am not at all. Your work is not "over my head" but your attitude
is.
> But if it really is beyond
> your ability to comprehend, why do try to argue against its relevance? Is
> that not the height of arrogant ignorance? How does that differ from the
> illiterate plumber rejecting Special Relativity? I don't mean to offend, I'm
> just following the argument you are presenting. Are you really arguing
> against the relevance of my work with no comprehension of its true meaning?
> What's up with this?
See the following
>
>
> > You do everything except explain what
> > value they add to Christianity. To me
> > this boarders on more Bible worship.
> > When I am all done, what has it done
> > for me in terms of becoming a better
> > Christian? I really await an answer to that.
>
> I have answered and reanswered that question. Take a look at my last posts
> to Blake Nelson. It answered a lot of these questions again.
I read the posts and they only demonstrate to me your own fascination with your
own theory (I eliminate "toy").
Years ago there was Theomatics with the same type of raving we have from you and
Vernon. It came to naught.
Then there was the Bible code, which also came to naught, despite the raving and
so called divinely inspired probabilities.
Both of these made the same claim that you and Vernon do. They would prove the
Bible was divinely inspired. That, my friend, is an absolutely worthless
objective when speaking to those who already believe it. There is no good reason
why you should fare any better than the above two and probably for the same
reasons.
The list you sent to Blake nelson only deepened my conviction that this has no
value other than something for you and a few select others to occupy time. To me
it is not of value and I am though discussing it.
Best wishes
Walt
===================================
Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>
In any consistent theory, there must
exist true but not provable statements.
(Godel's Theorem)
You can only find the truth with logic
If you have already found the truth
without it. (G.K. Chesterton)
===================================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Nov 04 2003 - 02:06:16 EST