Again, your misunderstanding of my post doesn't make it a red herring. But you're welcome to explain my post and then explain why it's a red herring. Then we can go from there.Your post did not reply to the content of what I wrote so it WAS a red herring. And then do you want me to explain to you why your comment is a red herring (but I've already done that)?
No thanks.
Again, your misunderstanding of my post doesn't make it a red herring. But you're welcome to explain my post and then explain why it's a red herring. Then we can go from there.
So it's not that what I said was wrong, but that I had typos. When I, and most people, see typos we figure out what was meant and respond accordingly. We had a member that couldn't couldn't hardly spell or write above maybe an eight grade level, yet people still communicated with him.When will you admit that you got it wrong with your terrible spelling? You wrote: 'Of course it died. Hope thst helps you'. What DIED? Zero, zilch, nothing DIED. Then the misspelling of 'thst' made your message irresponsibly ridiculous in your reply to what I wrote at #91.
So your reply did not relate to what I posted, thus making it a red herring. The fact that you don't want to admit this, further emphasises that you don't want to communicate in a rational way with me. A logical fallacy demonstrates erroneous reasoning, which is what you did.
I didn't come down in the last logical shower!
Oz
A truly educated and accomplished debater doesn't need to point out logical fallacies or make the claim that they are logical fallacies. An accomplished debater simply deals with the fallacy in a logical manner. He ignores red herrings or attempts to distract and continues on with his argument. If his argument is worth anything it will stand on its own without pointing fingers or making claims of logical fallacies.When will you admit that you got it wrong with your terrible spelling? You wrote: 'Of course it died. Hope thst helps you'. What DIED? Zero, zilch, nothing DIED. Then the misspelling of 'thst' made your message irresponsibly ridiculous in your reply to what I wrote at #91.
So your reply did not relate to what I posted, thus making it a red herring. The fact that you don't want to admit this, further emphasises that you don't want to communicate in a rational way with me. A logical fallacy demonstrates erroneous reasoning, which is what you did.
I didn't come down in the last logical shower!
Oz
A truly educated and accomplished debater doesn't need to point out logical fallacies or make the claim that they are logical fallacies. An accomplished debater simply deals with the fallacy in a logical manner. He ignores red herrings or attempts to distract and continues on with his argument. If his argument is worth anything it will stand on its own without pointing fingers or making claims of logical fallacies.
So it's not that what I said was wrong, but that I had typos. When I, and most people, see typos we figure out what was meant and respond accordingly. We had a member that couldn't couldn't hardly spell or write above maybe an eight grade level, yet people still communicated with him.
It is obvious that you realize they were typos. Yet instead of ignoring that, you want to go on a multiple page derail. Talk about a red herring.
So to get back on track:
Of course it DID. Hope that helps you.
But now that you know what I said, it wasn't a red herring. You can either respond to it, or continue this nonsense. It's up to you.You are the only one who knows you meant DID instead of DIED. But that is not what you wrote in #94. Therefore, I had every right to call you for use of a red herring fallacy at #96 and #98, because that is what you had done, as there was no admission and correction by you up to that point.
I was accurate in labelling your actions.
Oz
The person he was talking to. Not you.To whom are you addressing your comment?
But now that you know what I said, it wasn't a red herring. You can either respond to it, or continue this nonsense. It's up to you.
Of course it does. I hope that helps.You still are not answering my question:
Does this conversation with God include John 14:13-14 (ESV) for every believer? 'Whatever you ask in my name, this I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 If you ask me for anything in my name, I will do it'.
Sin is caused by our depraved nature not by Satan. We can't put the blame on Satan for what we do. Satan tempts and lies and deceives but our sin is all our own.Doesn't God just love us to talk to Him, even if He does know what way things are going to work out?
Also, isn't Satan the primary cause of sin?
Gillian