Shwa

Tony Blair wades in... Tony Blair says riots not symptom of moral decline I think the key to which view prevails will be determined in the long run.

Dalton McGuinty never removed "the protection of the Law from the entire Town of Caledonia" and you know it. Now you are lying. I can see why you find the Tories attractive.

I most certainly will...right after you post your proof of your "fact." Can't? Didn't think so!

Nah, the subject of this doesn't belong here. I think you are just whoring for some attention by being a troll.

Any excuse eh betsy? All your knowledge and you can't even supply a simple answer to a fairly simple premise. ... full implication of having several (51 at latest count) scientifically proven facts all found in and supporting A SINGLE ANCIENT Book that was written thousands of years ago! If you can't find any logic in that....or see the significance of that....then gimme a break! 51 scientifically proven facts in a book such as the Bible isn't statistically significant and thus the Bible cannot be considered scientifically reliable to any great degree. There are more than 51 "scientifically proven facts" in your average Star Trek novel, but I wouldn't be looking for Captain Kirk anytime soon. A question I ask vehement atheists can also be posed to you: how does science prove morality? Ever asked yourself that?

If you are unable to refute my statement - with the wealth of resources at your fingertips - then you concede the point to me and tarnish your credibility with regard to your knowledge of the material. There is no reason for me to "cite" because I am formulating a fairly straight forward premise. One to which you have no answer whatsoever? Well, that was easy. So you don't understand the implications of the formulation of the canon of the New Testament? Or don't want to understand the implications? I think it is the latter, since if you concede the implications of the formulation of the canon of the New Testament, then there is the possibility that not everything Jesus taught is available to us through the Biblical record, fragmentary as it was to begin with.

And this post has what to do with Canadian Federal politics exactly? Looks like Julia Gillard isn't the only media whore...

I see, so you are talking to yourself. That only makes sense from someone who states self-evident facts. So how does that prove that the CHRC won't take complaints from caucasian males?

No, meaning you can't prove something you say is a "fact." Mr. No Facts. Go ahead Saipan, prove your "fact." Can't? Didn't think so.

No need to cite, I am making the statement myself. If you are unable to refute it, based on what is presented to you in plain language, then you concede the point to me. Plain and simple. Do you need a "cite" to know that 1+1=2? Come on now betsy, surely you can do better than that. Unimportant which Bible you are currently reading, it refers to the canon of the New Testament and how it came about. Every scholar will understand it's implications in any version of the Bible. Do you understand the implications of the formulation of the canon of the New Testament?

I did, based on the fact that the Biblical recording of all the the Jesus character ever said or taught, in his entire lifetime, is very likely incomprehensive. The fact that the record we do have is such a small sub-set of the entire possible dataset, regarding the sub-set as non-comprehensive is a sound premise. Do you have grounds to suggest that this premise cannot be true and that the Bible contains a comprehensive and complete recording of everyhing that Jesus ever taught? Canon of the New Testament

It's all here, in this thread. Here and here.

Mr. "Saipan" No-Facts strikes again. And that's a fact! LOFL!

Why on earth would you think that it would? You're the one that keeps going from doctor to doctor trying to get someone to validate your complaints to re-enforce your perfect opinion of your so-called knowledge. Not me. You are the one that started the thread, not me. Enough to confidently spot the phoney parrots. How about you? A hypochondriac will frequently come up with new and different symptoms, usually as an avoidance mechanism towards discussing their actual condition of hypochondria. In your case you want to make this about Hardner or Dre, the Bible, Christian values or The Word. But it isn't. It is an epistemological condition you suffer from, unable to objectively verify your internal reality, but desperate to prove that you can. You need to, I don't. No I don't, but you are free to believe that if you wish, and integrate that notion into your mental structures. It won't help you much, but you are free to do so anyways. Then why the desperate need to prove that the Bible is true or that you are a true Christian? I'll tell you why: because you suspect neither is true and you have to continually re-enforce that internal notion to keep the thought that you might be completely wrong, at bay. Even Jesus has his doubts, but not mighty betsy. "Go and sin no more." Is that too difficult a phrase for you to understand? Oh, but I am focused. You are the one that is scattered and trying to duck the obvious. Surely there is a YouTube video or some evangelical blog you can cite as a counter-measure to the epistemological argument of your knowledge. Surely, there are scholars you can cite and reams of scientific evidence that show - that prove to everyone here beyond any doubt - that you are a Christian. Surely, a hig functioning Christian with an overwhelming wealth of faith and knowledge of The Truth such as you, must have this information at their fingertips ready to dispense to the meek and humble masses. Come on betsy, you can do it.

So in other words, yes, you cower behind rhetorical questions. Thought so.

So now is your chance to prove your "fact" Saipan. Show me evidence that the CHRC don't/won't act on complaints from Caucasians, especially male Caucasians. I am sure you have some citations or statistics or some other data from a legitimate source. Right? So how about coughing some up and letting us all know about this "fact" you speak of. Come on Saipan, here's your chance. Go for it. LOFL!

Do you try to hide behind rhetorical questions?

No. The reason I say "Saipan's dirty little world" is to acknowledge your fixation on caucasian males.

Still dodging eh Saipan? Can't answer your own question?

Again with the irony. What do YOU know about Christian values? That is the point isn't it - your ability to "know" anything outside of the mental structures you have created to substantiate a delusional sense of superior knowledge. You don't even know your "own group" and, furthermore, cannot engage in any sort of meaningful discussion in which the nature of those internal truisms can be honestly examined in the open. All you appear to be able to do is parrot. But despite the parrot's best effort at repeating The Word, it still doesn't know what The Word actually means.

Right. A "fact" in Saipan's dirty little world.

No. That is why shakey said you broke the rules.

Dodger.

Then we agree, in a sense. You would agree to personally fund a public broadcaster and I agree that it is OK for my taxes to go, in part, to the CBC.

The real irony is that there is more Christian value in a single one of his humble admissions than in all of your vehement defences of your rich little mental structures. I get a sense that he walks his convictions while I sense you are still trying to talk your way out.